Please reply to this article with any comments you may have about the Bill C-32 Clause-by-clause notes I authored. My intention is to keep that document updated with whatever feedback I receive.
With regard to clause 33, I read that as saying only that exempt media, as recognized by the CRTC, may qualify for the broadcast undertaking exemption, rather than that the CRTC has any say as to the content of the exception.
"33. The portion of subsection 30.8(11) of the Act after paragraph (c) is replaced by the following:
The undertaking must hold a broadcasting licence issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or be exempted from this requirement by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission."
The new part is the part in italics here, which was underlined in the bill. The existing 30.8 is all about an exception to copyright for Ephemeral Recordings. Section 30.8(11) is "Definition of “programming undertaking”".
We may want to ask for clarification on this. The "or be exempted from this requirement" by the CRTC seems like the CRTC is able to exempt a "programming undertaking" from the other limits to the exception that exists within 30.8(11), such as holding a broadcast license.
Grammatically, "this requirement" would seem to refer back to "must hold a broadcasting license." That is, the conditions for eligibility for the broadcasting undertaking exception are: 1) hold a broadcasting license, or 2) be exempt from the requirement to hold a broadcasting license. In each case, the CRTC makes the determination with respect to eligibility, but that's it.
I can't see any harm in asking for a clarification, but it seems straightforward to me.
I am still not convinced we interpreted the language of the bill differently. I think where we may have a problem is that my comment was poorly written.
Old:
"Not sure, but does this allow the CRTC to authorize exemptions for unlicensed new media? (See discussion on blogspot)"
How about:
"This allows the Ephemeral Recordings exemption to apply to entities that hold a broadcasting license, as well as allowing the CRTC to exempt additional entities that don't have a broadcast license. This additional flexibility will hopefully be used by the CRTC to enable this exemption for new media which, being unlicensed, were ineligible for similar exemptions."
Blogger wants you to log into blogger, separate from having a Google account, for your name to show up. If you don't want to be "Unknown", then please take that extra step.
I reserve the right to remove inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments.
Blogs are easy to create and share thoughts on, so links are great to keep conversation going.
With regard to clause 33, I read that as saying only that exempt media, as recognized by the CRTC, may qualify for the broadcast undertaking exemption, rather than that the CRTC has any say as to the content of the exception.
ReplyDeleteThe clause reads as follows:
ReplyDelete"33. The portion of subsection 30.8(11) of the Act after paragraph (c) is replaced by the following:
The undertaking must hold a broadcasting licence issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or be exempted from this requirement by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission."
The new part is the part in italics here, which was underlined in the bill. The existing 30.8 is all about an exception to copyright for Ephemeral Recordings. Section 30.8(11) is "Definition of “programming undertaking”".
We may want to ask for clarification on this. The "or be exempted from this requirement" by the CRTC seems like the CRTC is able to exempt a "programming undertaking" from the other limits to the exception that exists within 30.8(11), such as holding a broadcast license.
Grammatically, "this requirement" would seem to refer back to "must hold a broadcasting license." That is, the conditions for eligibility for the broadcasting undertaking exception are:
ReplyDelete1) hold a broadcasting license, or
2) be exempt from the requirement to hold a broadcasting license.
In each case, the CRTC makes the determination with respect to eligibility, but that's it.
I can't see any harm in asking for a clarification, but it seems straightforward to me.
I am still not convinced we interpreted the language of the bill differently. I think where we may have a problem is that my comment was poorly written.
ReplyDeleteOld:
"Not sure, but does this allow the CRTC to authorize exemptions for unlicensed new media? (See discussion on blogspot)"
How about:
"This allows the Ephemeral Recordings exemption to apply to entities that hold a broadcasting license, as well as allowing the CRTC to exempt additional entities that don't have a broadcast license. This additional flexibility will hopefully be used by the CRTC to enable this exemption for new media which, being unlicensed, were ineligible for similar exemptions."