| 翻訳と辞書 |
| An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session) ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Bill C-61, ''An Act to amend the Copyright Act'', was a bill tabled in 2008 during the second session of the 39th Canadian Parliament by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. The bill died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved prematurely and an election was called on September 7, 2008.http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-2ea4d00b-3de4-462b&Portal=448d158c-d857-4785-b759-ffa1c005933c&sub=46833 The Conservative Party of Canada promised in its 2008 election platform to re-introduce a bill containing the content of C-61 if re-elected.The bill was the successor to the previously proposed Bill C-60. Specifically, the Conservative government claimed that the bill was intended to meet Canada's WIPO treaty obligations. Bill C-61 attracted widespread criticism from critics who claimed that it did not strike a fair balance between the rights of copyright holders and consumers. There was also confusion between C-61 and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which also had significant copyright implications for Canada.Jim Prentice claimed that it would "expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own".http://www.stephenglauser.com/archives/news/the_end_of_digital_freedom_in/ However, the bill would have made it illegal to circumvent DRM technologies effectively rendering the rights granted useless for DRM protected digital media.This bill was superseded by Bill C-32 introduced on June 2, 2010.==Content==The proposed bill contained the following changes on what constituted copyright infringement and what did not for personal use.Time shifting, limited format shifting, copying for personal use, and device transferring of media were permitted but with significant limitations. Copies of shows and videocassettes could be made but were not allowed to involve DVDs, shows with a "no recording flag" or any other format encumbered by "digital locks". Additionally, a transfer of media was allowed only once per device owned by the purchaser of the original copy. The bill also gave rightsholders the autonomy of imposing additional clauses on the consumer (e.g. Amazon's non-transferability clause, promotional use only, do not sell/transfer, etc.). Format shifting was required to comply with an additional (twelve processes ) (pdf).Hosts, such as ISPs, were to be absolved of legal responsibility in the event of their services being unintentionally used to provide access to copyrighted material.Prentice, Jim. ("Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act." ) House of Commons of Canada (Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56-57 Elizabeth II, 2007-2008) June 12, 2008. Retrieved on July 2, 2008. (a)Section 31.1. (b)Section 20, Subsection 5.01 (c). (c)Part II - Performers’ Rights 1.1. (d)PLACE SECTION HERE --> Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively canceling out the right.The bill would have made circumventing all digital locks illegal, including locks on the Internet. It would have modified what libraries can do in providing digital copies, such that they would have been allowed to create digital copies for patrons, but the copies would have had to self-destruct or be destroyed within 5 days of creation. Bill C-61 modified the copyrights of performers and their performances giving the performer the sole right to:*"communicate (or her performance ) to the public by telecommunication." *"perform (or her performance ) in public." *fix his or her performance in material form, such as by recording it onto a DVD. *reproduce, rent, sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any sound recording of his or her performance. The Bill proposed a fine of $500 for music downloads. Since this was not made to apply in other cases, fines of $20,000 per instance defined in previous bills were understood to apply to new offences criminalized by Bill C-61. These included: circumventing digital locks or DRM regardless of reason/intent, uploading copyrighted material regardless of awareness or "making available" copyrighted material regardless of whether it was actually uploaded. In the case of commercial circumvention of DRM, Clause 32 of the Bill specified penalties of $1,000,000 and/or five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, or $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction.
Bill C-61, ''An Act to amend the Copyright Act'', was a bill tabled in 2008 during the second session of the 39th Canadian Parliament by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. The bill died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved prematurely and an election was called on September 7, 2008.〔http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-2ea4d00b-3de4-462b&Portal=448d158c-d857-4785-b759-ffa1c005933c&sub=46833〕 The Conservative Party of Canada promised in its 2008 election platform to re-introduce a bill containing the content of C-61 if re-elected.
The bill was the successor to the previously proposed Bill C-60. Specifically, the Conservative government claimed that the bill was intended to meet Canada's WIPO treaty obligations. Bill C-61 attracted widespread criticism from critics who claimed that it did not strike a fair balance between the rights of copyright holders and consumers. There was also confusion between C-61 and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which also had significant copyright implications for Canada.
Jim Prentice claimed that it would "expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own".〔http://www.stephenglauser.com/archives/news/the_end_of_digital_freedom_in/〕 However, the bill would have made it illegal to circumvent DRM technologies effectively rendering the rights granted useless for DRM protected digital media.
This bill was superseded by Bill C-32 introduced on June 2, 2010.
==Content==
The proposed bill contained the following changes on what constituted copyright infringement and what did not for personal use.
Time shifting, limited format shifting, copying for personal use, and device transferring of media were permitted but with significant limitations. Copies of shows and videocassettes could be made but were not allowed to involve DVDs, shows with a "no recording flag" or any other format encumbered by "digital locks". Additionally, a transfer of media was allowed only once per device owned by the purchaser of the original copy. The bill also gave rightsholders the autonomy of imposing additional clauses on the consumer (e.g. Amazon's non-transferability clause, promotional use only, do not sell/transfer, etc.). Format shifting was required to comply with an additional (twelve processes ) (pdf).
Hosts, such as ISPs, were to be absolved of legal responsibility in the event of their services being unintentionally used to provide access to copyrighted material.〔Prentice, Jim. ("Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act." ) House of Commons of Canada (Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56-57 Elizabeth II, 2007-2008) June 12, 2008. Retrieved on July 2, 2008.
(a)Section 31.1.
(b)Section 20, Subsection 5.01 (c).
(c)Part II - Performers’ Rights 1.1.
〕 Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively canceling out the right.
The bill would have made circumventing all digital locks illegal, including locks on the Internet. It would have modified what libraries can do in providing digital copies, such that they would have been allowed to create digital copies for patrons, but the copies would have had to self-destruct or be destroyed within 5 days of creation.〔
Bill C-61 modified the copyrights of performers and their performances giving the performer the sole right to:〔
*"communicate (or her performance ) to the public by telecommunication."
*"perform (or her performance ) in public."
*fix his or her performance in material form, such as by recording it onto a DVD.
*reproduce, rent, sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any sound recording of his or her performance.
The Bill proposed a fine of $500 for music downloads. Since this was not made to apply in other cases, fines of $20,000 per instance defined in previous bills were understood to apply to new offences criminalized by Bill C-61. These included: circumventing digital locks or DRM regardless of reason/intent, uploading copyrighted material regardless of awareness or "making available" copyrighted material regardless of whether it was actually uploaded. In the case of commercial circumvention of DRM, Clause 32 of the Bill specified penalties of $1,000,000 and/or five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, or $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction.〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively canceling out the right.The bill would have made circumventing all digital locks illegal, including locks on the Internet. It would have modified what libraries can do in providing digital copies, such that they would have been allowed to create digital copies for patrons, but the copies would have had to self-destruct or be destroyed within 5 days of creation. Bill C-61 modified the copyrights of performers and their performances giving the performer the sole right to:*"communicate (or her performance ) to the public by telecommunication." *"perform (or her performance ) in public." *fix his or her performance in material form, such as by recording it onto a DVD. *reproduce, rent, sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any sound recording of his or her performance. The Bill proposed a fine of $500 for music downloads. Since this was not made to apply in other cases, fines of $20,000 per instance defined in previous bills were understood to apply to new offences criminalized by Bill C-61. These included: circumventing digital locks or DRM regardless of reason/intent, uploading copyrighted material regardless of awareness or "making available" copyrighted material regardless of whether it was actually uploaded. In the case of commercial circumvention of DRM, Clause 32 of the Bill specified penalties of $1,000,000 and/or five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, or $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction.">ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively canceling out the right.The bill would have made circumventing all digital locks illegal, including locks on the Internet. It would have modified what libraries can do in providing digital copies, such that they would have been allowed to create digital copies for patrons, but the copies would have had to self-destruct or be destroyed within 5 days of creation. Bill C-61 modified the copyrights of performers and their performances giving the performer the sole right to:*"communicate (or her performance ) to the public by telecommunication." *"perform (or her performance ) in public." *fix his or her performance in material form, such as by recording it onto a DVD. *reproduce, rent, sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any sound recording of his or her performance. The Bill proposed a fine of $500 for music downloads. Since this was not made to apply in other cases, fines of $20,000 per instance defined in previous bills were understood to apply to new offences criminalized by Bill C-61. These included: circumventing digital locks or DRM regardless of reason/intent, uploading copyrighted material regardless of awareness or "making available" copyrighted material regardless of whether it was actually uploaded. In the case of commercial circumvention of DRM, Clause 32 of the Bill specified penalties of $1,000,000 and/or five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, or $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction.">ウィキペディアで「Bill C-61, ''An Act to amend the Copyright Act'', was a bill tabled in 2008 during the second session of the 39th Canadian Parliament by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. The bill died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved prematurely and an election was called on September 7, 2008.http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-2ea4d00b-3de4-462b&Portal=448d158c-d857-4785-b759-ffa1c005933c&sub=46833 The Conservative Party of Canada promised in its 2008 election platform to re-introduce a bill containing the content of C-61 if re-elected.The bill was the successor to the previously proposed Bill C-60. Specifically, the Conservative government claimed that the bill was intended to meet Canada's WIPO treaty obligations. Bill C-61 attracted widespread criticism from critics who claimed that it did not strike a fair balance between the rights of copyright holders and consumers. There was also confusion between C-61 and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which also had significant copyright implications for Canada.Jim Prentice claimed that it would "expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own".http://www.stephenglauser.com/archives/news/the_end_of_digital_freedom_in/ However, the bill would have made it illegal to circumvent DRM technologies effectively rendering the rights granted useless for DRM protected digital media.This bill was superseded by Bill C-32 introduced on June 2, 2010.==Content==The proposed bill contained the following changes on what constituted copyright infringement and what did not for personal use.Time shifting, limited format shifting, copying for personal use, and device transferring of media were permitted but with significant limitations. Copies of shows and videocassettes could be made but were not allowed to involve DVDs, shows with a "no recording flag" or any other format encumbered by "digital locks". Additionally, a transfer of media was allowed only once per device owned by the purchaser of the original copy. The bill also gave rightsholders the autonomy of imposing additional clauses on the consumer (e.g. Amazon's non-transferability clause, promotional use only, do not sell/transfer, etc.). Format shifting was required to comply with an additional (twelve processes ) (pdf).Hosts, such as ISPs, were to be absolved of legal responsibility in the event of their services being unintentionally used to provide access to copyrighted material.Prentice, Jim. ("Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act." ) House of Commons of Canada (Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56-57 Elizabeth II, 2007-2008) June 12, 2008. Retrieved on July 2, 2008. (a)Section 31.1. (b)Section 20, Subsection 5.01 (c). (c)Part II - Performers’ Rights 1.1. (d)PLACE SECTION HERE --> Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively canceling out the right.The bill would have made circumventing all digital locks illegal, including locks on the Internet. It would have modified what libraries can do in providing digital copies, such that they would have been allowed to create digital copies for patrons, but the copies would have had to self-destruct or be destroyed within 5 days of creation. Bill C-61 modified the copyrights of performers and their performances giving the performer the sole right to:*"communicate (or her performance ) to the public by telecommunication." *"perform (or her performance ) in public." *fix his or her performance in material form, such as by recording it onto a DVD. *reproduce, rent, sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any sound recording of his or her performance. The Bill proposed a fine of $500 for music downloads. Since this was not made to apply in other cases, fines of $20,000 per instance defined in previous bills were understood to apply to new offences criminalized by Bill C-61. These included: circumventing digital locks or DRM regardless of reason/intent, uploading copyrighted material regardless of awareness or "making available" copyrighted material regardless of whether it was actually uploaded. In the case of commercial circumvention of DRM, Clause 32 of the Bill specified penalties of $1,000,000 and/or five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, or $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|