04+Evolution+Of+Copyright

** __The Evolution Of Copyright In Canada__ **
It is very interesting to see how Copyright Law has attempted to keep pace with new technology and the ease of obtaining information.

This link also sheds a lot of light on how complicated Copyright Law is and just how many other considerations go into Copyright Law. The North American Free Trade Act, World Trade Organization and the CRTC are just some of the parties that have influenced Copyright law in Canada.

[] Source:Canadian Heritage July 2009

**__Time line__**
Copyright in Canada, History


 * **Event Name** || **Start Date** || **Notes** ||
 * Copyright Act of Canada || 1921 || Copyright law in Canada grew out of a long series of British statutes and common law, including the Statute of Anne and the Imperial Copyright Act. It was first consolidated into one Canadian statute in 1921, the Copyright Act of Canada. The Act has been amended over the years by various Bills passed by the Canadian parliament. ||
 * Bill C-32 || 1997 || Bill C-32, which received Royal Assent in 1997, amended the Copyright Act of Canada. Among the changes was a provision that legalized music file sharing under certain conditions. The provision states that copying copyrighted sound recordings of musical works for the personal use of the person making the copy, does not constitute a violation of the copyright of that work. In this sense, file downloaders are cleared of liability for copyright violations so long as their activities are for private use only. However, the question of whether making files available for copying on peer-to-peer file sharing systems constitutes illegal distribution or not, is currently an open question in Canadian law. ||
 * Copyright Board of Canada and P2P filesharing || 2003 || The Copyright Board of Canada is a regulatory body empowered to establish the amounts and kinds of levies to be charged on blank audio media under the Private Copying section of the Copyright Act. On December 12, 2003, it released a decision setting the levies to be charged for 2003 and 2004. In relation to this, it also commented in response to queries that were made regarding the legality of P2P file sharing. The Copyright Board gave the opinion that Private Copying of copyrighted sound recordings for one's personal use was legal, irrespective of the source of that material. Users of P2P networks were thus clear of liability for copyright violations for any music file downloading activity. The decision noted that distributing music online was expressly excluded from the Private Copying exception, and it associated the word "uploading" with the act of distribution. ||
 * BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe || 2004 || In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers. ||
 * BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe - Appeal || 2005 || In 2005, the controversial ruling of Justice Konrad von Finckenstein, making file uploading of sound recordings on peer-to-peer systems legal, was set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that although the original case should be dismissed due to lack of evidence linking the unnamed defendants to the alleged copyright infringements, the question of the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing must be decided in a future case. ||
 * RCMP Tolerates Piracy for Personal Use || 2007 || According to the RCMP it is impossible to track down everyone who uploads music or movies to the Internet. The police simply do not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.[18]
 * BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe || 2004 || In 2004, the Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was dealt a blow in its bid to take action against 29 internet users with extensive file sharing activities. The CRIA filed suit to have the ISPs reveal the identities of the 29 file sharers. In the ruling, both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal judged that the CRIA's case was not strong enough to support interfering with the defendants right to privacy and questioned whether the CRIA had a copyright case at all based on its evidence. Because the ISPs were not required to reveal the identities of their clients, the CRIA could not go on to sue the file sharers in a manner mimicking the RIAA's legal proceedings in the U.S.A. The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada. This decision dealt a major blow to attempts by the CRIA to crack down on file sharers. ||
 * BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe - Appeal || 2005 || In 2005, the controversial ruling of Justice Konrad von Finckenstein, making file uploading of sound recordings on peer-to-peer systems legal, was set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that although the original case should be dismissed due to lack of evidence linking the unnamed defendants to the alleged copyright infringements, the question of the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing must be decided in a future case. ||
 * RCMP Tolerates Piracy for Personal Use || 2007 || According to the RCMP it is impossible to track down everyone who uploads music or movies to the Internet. The police simply do not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.[18]
 * BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe - Appeal || 2005 || In 2005, the controversial ruling of Justice Konrad von Finckenstein, making file uploading of sound recordings on peer-to-peer systems legal, was set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that although the original case should be dismissed due to lack of evidence linking the unnamed defendants to the alleged copyright infringements, the question of the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing must be decided in a future case. ||
 * RCMP Tolerates Piracy for Personal Use || 2007 || According to the RCMP it is impossible to track down everyone who uploads music or movies to the Internet. The police simply do not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.[18]
 * RCMP Tolerates Piracy for Personal Use || 2007 || According to the RCMP it is impossible to track down everyone who uploads music or movies to the Internet. The police simply do not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.[18]

“Piracy for personal use is no longer targeted,” Noël St-Hilaire, head of copyright theft investigations of the RCMP, said in an interview with Le Devoir. “It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it,” he added.

St-Hilaire explained that they would rather focus on crimes that actually hurt consumers such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, as well as ones that affect organized crime. ||
 * Bill C-61 is introduced || 2008 || The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repurcussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government’s seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill’s provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position. ||
 * Bill C-61 is introduced || 2008 || The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repurcussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government’s seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill’s provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position. ||


 * The Special 301 Report 2010 || 2010 || The specific wording of the Canada section of the report is much the same as 2009, with 2010 priorities being:
 * The Special 301 Report 2010 || 2010 || The specific wording of the Canada section of the report is much the same as 2009, with 2010 priorities being:

||
 * Proceed with legislative copyright reforms to update Canada’s copyright laws.
 * Address Internet piracy by fully implementing WIPO.
 * Improve the IPR enforcement system to provide deterrent sentences and stronger enforcement powers, focusing on border enforcement.
 * Bill C-32 (New version) is introduced || 2010 || Affects interests in all sectors ||

Sources:

Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights. 2010, Recent Developments on Canadian Copyright. []

Wikipaedia. January 2009. File Sharing in Canada. []