Talk:Copyright law of Canada

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 13 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edasi088.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

CIPO

CIPO has a lot of information on copyright. I plan to add an external link if no one objects.

Canadian Intellectual Property Office - Copyright

Chris Purves 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Posthumous works

Hello,

Can someone make a short explanation out of http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/section-7.html I don't understand what is the meaning of this. Thanks, Yann 13:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I would think it would be better if a "history section was created on the this page and with the Canadian Copyright act here (as that page is so short) either completely, or as such that a subsection is created on this page that has the 'see main article' thing that redirects it to the other page.

Noian (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to a complete merge, however I would be okay with moving specific sections between the two articles. Canadian copyright law includes the Copyright Act, as well as case law and copyright-related legislation which does not amend the Copyright Act itself. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the comment above - A partial merge makes sense here. Having two separate articles on virtually the same subject is confusing. At the same time, I recognize that there's detailed differences between the two subjects. The Copyright Act should remain as as subject on it's own, but I think it's a smaller subject than "Canadian Copyright Law". Therefore, anything that applies to both should be inside "Canadian Copyright Law". Specific information on the Act could stay with that section. Gcorsar (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose a complete merger - I think it's important to recognize the distinction between the Act itself and the body of law in total.--Bepa (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

mm - the merger was discussed on both talk pages, once in 2008 on the Copyright Act of Canada article, and from 2008 to January 2010 here. No decision was ever made apart from noting that the articles need some work so that one deals with the act, and the other with Canadian copyright law more generally. I will remove the merger tags from both articles and do some work on both.

An example of how this should look like is probably the Copyright law of the United Kingdom article and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 article, once is about the copyright law in that country, and the other about the specific copyright act that is currently in force.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Terms for Companies

What is the copyright term for a company? If, in general, the copyright term in Canada is the life of the author plus 50 years does this mean that as long as the company exists it retains copyright on any works it creates? Or is there a separate clause in the Copyright Act pertaining to companies.

Stephen Rasku (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion Explanations

Under the page heading "Music Recordings", I've removed the following: This consumer right has been extended by the courts to include peer-to-peer downloads. This particular opinion was based on the 2003 Copyright Board decision, which was overruled by a 2005 Federal Court of Appeal decision. I've provided a reference to the 2005 case in the updated encyclopedic content. Fslee (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States copyright law which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions regarding collectives and issues and context regarding copyright amendments

Since there has been some talk recently in the media about copyright reform, I added two new sections: collectives and issues. Any other thoughts on these topics? I also added some more context regarding the copyright bills. Kpfroggy (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More fixes re. collectives, links and new section re. rights

Further to my previous edits, I changed the title of private copying to Canadian Private Copying Collective. I notice there are a lot of related articles to this entry, so I added the links I can find in the see also section.

I added a new section on rights. I think in addition to the more controversial topics regarding Canadian copyright reforms, some information should be given with regards to the more basic rights, like moral rights. A lot of copyright is based on the moral rights of the author, so I think people can really benefit from having a flushed section on the topic. Kpfroggy (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to Bill C-11

Hello,

Would anyone object to my creating a Reactions section (to Bill C-11), or do you feel this information would be better placed under the Issues section? This would most likely contain links to articles from members of government, the public and possibly, corporate spheres. User:Dunedin12 (User talk:Dunedin12/talk) 21:48, 24 October 2011

@ Dunedin12

I thiink this can also fit into the legislativve reforms section. If there are a good number of debates surrounding some of the concepts/provisions, you can probably put it in the issues section as well.142.1.213.236 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, the person who made the edit with the IP address was actually me....I forgot to log in. Kpfroggy (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the G&M posted an article under its technology section today with some comments on C-11. You may find that interesting. Kpfroggy (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kpfroggy. This is very helpful. Dunedin12 (User talk:Dunedin12/talk) 30 October 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Hello,

The recent Supreme Court decision on hyperlinks might have some copyright issues, as it essentially argues that hyperlinking to another page does not constitute a liability to the linke, regardless of the nature of the content. It's still early days, but this might become an important issue in the upcoming Bill.

Secondly, though there is already a Wiki page dedicated to it, the "digital locks" issue is discussed in a somewhat peripheral way on the Paracopyright page. This might have some reprecussions on the ever increasing use of "pay walls." Will circumventing pay walls be a "technological" infringement, or content theft, or both?

If the new bill is passed, it might also be helpful to consider what penalties will be enforcable? Will they be criminal?

Just a thought. Thanks.

Monaghansean (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Monaghansean

I am not sure if the hyperlinking should be mixed here or be in another topic. It seems more in the field of libel/slander than copyright. I think the article is more catered towards issues directly involved in Copyright Act.

As for the digital locks, I think it can stay as it is here because the section deals more with digital locks as it relates to Canadian copyright law than digital locks in general--which is essentially what the digital locks page deals with. Nonetheless, I agree that it would be good to add some information regarding C-11's enforcement sections. Kpfroggy (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Revising this article as an assignment for the law course at the University of Toronto

I've been given an assignment to integrate a paper that I wrote for the Intellectual Property law class at the University of Toronto (part of the Wikipedia Canada Education Programme)into this article. Please do not make any changes to this version of this article until the end of my course in the middle of January 2012. My additions to this article relate mainly to the purpose of copyrights as seen more from philosophical and legal perspective that is the subject of my study and my assignment. However, if the authors and contributors to the original version of this article strongly believe that the content should stay as encyclopedic as it is, I will be happy to change it back to the original version after my class is over. I appreciate your understanding Mken86 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Mken86

@Mken86

Actually Dunedin12 (I believe) and I are doing a similar project for the Faculty of Information at UT. Our focus is less on the legal perspective but on how information and knowledge produced and distributed. We may have to continue working on this page until November 29, 2011 when our assignment is due. Though I cannot speak for my classmate, I would very much appreciate if we can cooperate in this project. Perhaps you cans share with us about why you want to make certain changes, or how you make them. Also, you can comment on our edits. Thank you.

Kpfroggy (talk)

Further to my comment above, even after my assignment is completed, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with your assignment. I'd be more than happy to help if you want to work together in making contributions to this entry. Kpfroggy (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal approaches and theories section

The section on legal approaches and theories do not seem to fit with the rest of the article - possibly can be moved and redirected to Philosophy of copyright (though that article has its own issues). Either way, it needs a lot of improvement because it looks like something cribbed from a law student summary or essay. Perhaps the best thing to do is to point to the main article and then give a few Canadian interpretations of the concepts if we decide to keep it here. Unavoidable (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

C-11 taking effect

I've been reading about Canadian DRM law as part of working on the iOS jailbreaking article, and last week Michael Geist posted this: Canadian Copyright Reform In Force: Expanded User Rights Now the Law. It looks like this article should be updated to reflect the passing of Bill C-11, but I'm not very familiar with Canadian law in general, so I'll leave the updating to somebody else who knows more than I do. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On my to-do list, but if anyone wants to tackle it please help! Not a lot of editors working on Canadian copyright law right now. Unavoidable (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was quite surprised when I received a letter from my ISP talking about the new copyright law. This article still listed bill C-11 as tabled! I updated the information in this article and referenced a few relevant links. However, I agree with the above commenter. Chances are the new law makes a good portion of the information listed in this article outside of copyright history obsolete.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright review

Hi there, I just added a short section on the 5 year parliamentary review of the copyright act that started in 2017. I put in under copyright reform, but if anyone has suggestions for a better location or doesn't think it's appropriate, I'm open to ideas. I am editing for a course. Edasi088 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in Extension of copyright term

The first paragraph of said section says the general rule is still life + 50 years, contradicting the second paragraph. My guess is that the first is out of date. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)