OTTAWA – The Conservative government is giving consumers permission to copy content for personal use, while expanding the ability of businesses to digitally lock their products to prevent anyone from actually doing it.

The government is once again trying to modernize copyright legislation – last updated when a cassette deck was still a standard feature on a stereo system – by introducing a bill that would finally legalize what thousands of Canadians have been doing for years.

That means it would no longer be against the law to record television programs for later viewing or copy songs from compact discs onto a computer so they can be transferred onto an MP3 player.

At the same time, the bill tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday would make it illegal for consumers to break any technological protection measures – so-called “digital locks” – that prevent unauthorized access to the copyrighted material, with fines of up to a million dollars and five years in jail.

That is expected to be the most hotly debated aspect of the amendments contained in Bill C-32, as consumer advocates and online technology experts say this amounts to the government giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

“If I lock my door and I say ‘Go in and use the fridge’, the moment you break my lock, you’re breaking and entering, even if I say ‘Once you’re in the house, you can use my fridge,” said Toronto-based copyright lawyer Sheldon Burshtein.

That is because the proposed rules against circumventing technological protection measures trump virtually all the newfound freedoms contained in the bill, such as allowing schools greater flexibility in using copyrighted material in the classroom under so-called “fair dealing” exemptions.

“We’re quite disappointed by it, because although there is exception for educational and research purposes, it is essentially trumped by the anti-circumvention rules in the legislation,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. “I think there is a real danger that the large publishing and entertainment industries are going to put locks on them as a way of increasing their profits and I think that is going to have a real impact on our ability in our sector to do research, to innovate and to be creative.”

The provision would even override existing rights such as allowing journalists to use copyrighted material in news reporting.

The only exceptions are for technology firms that need to reproduce copyrighted material for research and development purposes such as security testing and consumers who want to switch their wireless device to another service provider.

Industry Minister Tony Clement, speaking at the Montreal offices of U.S. video game maker EA Games, said that market forces and trends will keep publishers, game makers and film distributors from using digital locks too heavily.

“There will be lots of content that is not locked and for those areas where content is locked I’m sure there will be lots of consumer pressure to provide other alternatives,” said Clement. “We’re not imposing locks on anyone.”

Those calling for greater freedom in what consumers can do with legitimately obtained copyrighted material are not the only ones disappointed in the bill.

“The bill will now allow format shifting and private copying without any compensation or recognition of the rights of creators and so we’re clearly disappointed. . . that it is in fact taking rights away from creators that we had under the current Act,” said Stephen Waddell, national executive director for ACTRA.

The government has been under pressure from the United States and Europe to strengthen Canadian copyright law and bring it into line with international treaties, but the bill should quash any fears that companies will start making examples out of ordinary citizens by launching major lawsuits like those seen below the border.

The proposed legislation limits the amount for which companies such as record labels can sue individuals for accessing pirated materials, as long as it was not done for commercial purposes.

Current law does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringements, so individuals could be sued for up to $20,000 for each work copied to a maximum of $1 million.

The new bill reduces the possible damages a judge could award in a non-commercial case to a one-time payment of up to $5,000.

Still, the government is giving businesses a new legal avenue to sue online piracy sites that facilitate copyright infringement – so called “enablers,” according to the law. The civil remedy adds to the existing criminal provisions that deal with pirate sites.

Internet service providers – those that provide Internet access in homes and businesses – are now required to notify a customer fingered by a copyright owner that he or she is allegedly illegally sharing files.

This is the third time the Harper government has attempted to change copyright legislation – the last bill, C-61, faced massive opposition from the public before dying when the 2008 election was called – and Clement has acknowledge he needs the support of another party to succeed.

Liberal heritage critic Pablo Rodriguez said his party is not yet ready to say yes or no.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“We’ll take the necessary time to consult with stakeholders and also the caucus,” Rodriguez said in an interview Wednesday.

Charlie Angus, the NDP critic for digital issues, came out strongly against the bill because it does not provide for the compensation of artists, but said his party is willing to work on it.

“We intend to produce a bill that will work, that will be fair to artists (and) that will make sure artists get paid, but will stop criminalizing citizens for accessing works that they paid for,” Angus told reporters outside the Commons.