Author Archives: Lila Bailey

Working to Keep Positive Copyright Provisions in Canada

We have said previously that Canada is doing a relatively good job of achieving the appropriate balance in its laws between user rights and the rights of authors and publishers.

The Internet Archive joined the Internet Archive Canada today in filing a brief to the Canadian Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Trade (INDU) under that county’s statutory review of its copyright laws.

Our message to INDU is mostly: “don’t back pedal”. We do suggest that if Canada decides to extend its copyright term by 20 years pursuant to the USMCA, that they add a balancing provision allowing libraries to make those older works available to the public.

Our brief here.

Join us for A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

Check out the photos from the event!

Screen shot from Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 silent classic, “The Ten Commandments.” On January 1, 2019, this film and tens of thousands of other works will enter the public domain.

It’s time to celebrate!  For the first time in decades, new creative works such as Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 silent film, “The Ten Commandments,” Kahlil Gibran’s classic “The Prophet,” and Virginia Woolf’s third novel, “Jacob’s Room,” will enter the public domain on the first day of 2019. Please join us for a Grand Re-opening of the Public Domain, featuring a keynote address by Creative Commons’ founder, Lawrence Lessig, on January 25, 2019.  Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, this celebration will feature legal thought leaders, lightning talks, demos, and the chance to play with these new public domain works. The event will take place at the Internet Archive in San Francisco.

RSVP now before the tickets run out

Kahlil Gibran’s “The Prophet” will enter the public domain on January 1st!

The public domain is our shared cultural heritage, a near limitless trove of creativity that’s been reused, remixed, and reimagined over centuries to create new works of art and science. The public domain forms the building blocks of culture because these works are not restricted by copyright law. Generally, works come into the public domain when their copyright term expires. But U.S. copyright law has greatly expanded over time, so that now many works don’t enter the public domain for a hundred years or more. Ever since the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, no new works have entered the public domain (well, none due to copyright expiration). But for the first time this January, tens of thousands of books, films, visual art, sheet music, and plays published in 1923 will be free of intellectual property restrictions, and anyone can use them for any purpose at all.

The cartoons featuring Felix the Cat, 1923, is among the tens of thousands of works that will be full accessible starting 2019.

Join the creative, legal, library, and advocacy communities plus an amazing lineup of people who will highlight the significance of this new class of public domain works. Presenters include Larry Lessig, political activist and Harvard Law professor; Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Cory Doctorow, science fiction author and co-editor of Boing Boing; Pam Samuelson, copyright scholar; and Jamie Boyle, the man who literally wrote the book on the public domain, and many others.

Continue the celebration at the world premiere of DJ Spooky’s “Quantopia” at the Yerba Buena Center in SF on January 25.

In the evening, the celebration continues as we transition to Yerba Buena Center for the Arts for the world premiere of Paul D. Miller, aka DJ Spooky’s Quantopia: The Evolution of the Internet, a live concert synthesizing data and art, both original and public domain materials, in tribute to the depth and high stakes of free speech and creative expression involved in our daily use of media. Attendees of our Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain event will receive an Internet Archive code for a 20% discount for tickets to Quantopia.

If you’d like to  support the work we do at the Internet Archive, including making these 1923 works available to you for free on January 1,

please donate here.

Schedule of Events:

10am: Doors & Registration

10-11:45am: Interactive public domain demos and project stations with organizations including Creative Commons, Internet Archive, Wikipedia, Authors Alliance, Electronic Frontier Foundation, California Digital Library, Center for the Study of the Public Domain, LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the Cleveland Art Museum, and many more!

11:45-1pm: Lunch on your own in the Richmond District

1pm-6pm: Program of keynote speakers, lightning talks and panels highlighting the value and importance of the public domain

6pm-7:30pm: Reception

Speakers/Panelists Include:

  • Lawrence Lessig – Harvard Law Professor
  • Cory Doctorow – Author & Co-editor, Boing-Boing
  • Pam Samuelson – Berkeley Law Professor
  • Paul Soulellis – Artist & Rhode Island School of Design Professor
  • Jamie Boyle – Duke Law Professor & Founder, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
  • Brewster Kahle – Founder & Digital Librarian, Internet Archive
  • Corynne McSherry – Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Ryan Merkley – CEO, Creative Commons
  • Jennifer Urban – Berkeley Law Professor
  • Joseph C. Gratz – Partner, Durie Tangri
  • Jane Park – Director of Product and Research, Creative Commons
  • Cheyenne Hohman – Director, Free Music Archive
  • Ben Vershbow – Director, Community Programs, Wikimedia
  • Jennifer Jenkins – Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
  • Rick Prelinger – Founder, Prelinger Archives
  • Amy Mason – LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired
  • Paul Keller – Communia Association
  • Michael Wolfe – Duke Lecturing Fellow, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
  • Daniel Schacht – Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group, Donahue Fitzgerald LLP

Library Coalition Letter on Music Copyright Bills

On Monday, the Internet Archive joined a coalition of the library and archives community, including the Society of American Archivists, The Archive of Contemporary Music, the Music Library Association, and the Association for Recorded Sound Collections among others, in sending a letter to Senate leadership addressing two pieces of legislation, each seeking to improve the confusing world of music copyright law. We’ve blogged about each of these bills here before, one is known as the CLASSICS Act and the other as the ACCESS to Recordings Act.

Although both bills seek to remedy the situation for older sound recordings from before 1972, which are not protected by federal copyright law but rather only by a patchwork of state laws, the CLASSICS Act goes about doing so in a one-sided manner that would give away valuable rights to big record labels and leave libraries and the public out. Although attempts are apparently being made in closed-door negotiations to even out the balance, the Internet Archive and the rest of the coalition believe that the CLASSICS Act is beyond fixing, as articulated in detail on our letter, and should be rejected by Congress.

The ACCESS to Recordings Act, on the other hand, would harmonize older sound recordings with every other type of work protected under copyright law, granting rights to performers and the full set of exceptions and limitations, including a robust public domain, allowing researchers, historians and music fans alike to access our cultural heritage. The coalition therefore supports the ACCESS Act as the correct and more sensible path forward on bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under federal copyright protection.

If you care about this issue, the best thing you can do now is pick up the phone and call your own Senators to let them know you oppose the CLASSICS Act and support the ACCESS to Recordings Act. You can also go to EFF’s website to take action opposing CLASSICS and you can go the Public Knowledge’s website to support ACCESS.

Proposed EU Copyright Measure Threatens the Internet

The European Union is set to vote on a copyright proposal that will require platforms hosting user-generated content to automatically scan and filter anything that their users upload (see the EU Commission’s proposed Article 13 of the Copyright Directive) on June 20th or 21st.

We urge the European Parliament to reject this proposal. We encourage Internet users to go to to take action.

The main purpose of Article 13 is to limit music and videos on streaming platforms, based on a theory of a “value gap” between the profits that platforms make on uploaded works, verses those the copyright holders of those works receive. However, the proposal extends far beyond music, requiring platforms to monitor every type of copyrighted work–text, images, audio, video, and even code. Article 13 would have an impact on just about everything that happens online, threatening freedom of expression, privacy, and the free flow of knowledge on the Internet.

We have discussed our concerns with the idea of automated content filters when the idea came up in US copyright conversations in the past. This law is troubling in the same ways. Requiring platforms to monitor content contradicts existing rules that create a shared responsibility between platforms and rightsholders for removal of illegal content. In doing so, the law creates incentives to remove legitimate content; it creates a a troubling “take down first, ask questions later/never” attitude to online content.

Filters are not good at understanding context, and therefore legitimate speech such as commentary, parody, or satire may be removed without any human judgment involved. Legitimate expression may be chilled in the form of overly cautious self-policing as a result. Article 13 also has no penalties for false or misleading claims, leaving the system wide open for abuse.

Further, although Article 13 is intended to prevent uploads that infringe copyright, the same technology could be required for filtering of content for compliance with other EU laws, which would compound the dangers that this measure poses for freedom of expression and privacy online. And, policymakers in other countries, including the United States, may come to view mandating content filters as an acceptable way to regulate the Internet if the EU does it first.

We urge you to take action.

[More from EFF, Public Knowledge, and Wikipedia].

The ACCESS to Recordings Act is the Right Way to Fix Music Copyright

Senator Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a common sense bill to fix a bad mistake made by Congress in the 1970s as an alternative to the bad bill Congress is currently considering. The Accessibility for Curators, Creators, Educators, Scholars, and Society (ACCESS) to Recordings Act would extend full federal copyright to sound recordings created before 1972–works that currently only have state law protection.

ACCESS is good for legacy musicians and good for libraries. This bill would help give legal certainty to library activities such as our Great 78 Project that seeks to preserve and give access to the millions of songs recorded on 78rpm discs from approximately 1900-1950. Many of these important cultural works are not commercially viable, and therefore could be lost forever without library intervention. ACCESS supports libraries’ ability to ensure the continued availability of our sound recording heritage.

“Copyright reform for pre-1972 sound recordings must consider the interests of all stakeholders – not just those of the for-profit record labels,” said Senator Wyden. “The ACCESS to Recordings Act, by applying the same term limits and rights and obligations that apply to other copyrighted works, would help preserve our cultural heritage and open up older works to rediscovery by scholars, creators and the public. I have serious concerns about the lengthy terms in current U.S. copyright law that tip the balance toward limiting rather than promoting creativity and innovation, but until Congress is willing to reconsider it, we shouldn’t go beyond those protections and provide unprecedented federal copyright term for sound recordings.”

The Internet Archive joins Public Knowledge, the Library Copyright Alliance and the Association for Recorded Sound Collections in supporting this bill, and urging Congress to pass it.

The Music Modernization Act is Bad for the Preservation of Sound Recordings

There’s a bill working its way through Congress called the Music Modernization Act (the current bill is a mix of several bills, the portion we are concerned with was formerly called the CLASSICS Act) that has us very concerned about the fate of historical sound recordings. As currently drafted, this bill would vastly expand the rights of performers of pre-1972 sound recordings, without any provision for a public domain for these works or meaningful fair use and library exceptions. After a visit to Washington DC meeting with various Congressional staffers working on this issue, we do not believe that the CLASSICS portion of the bill will be fixed. We therefore oppose the CLASSICS portion of the Music Modernization Act.

We agree with EFF on this, and they have written on the subject as well.

By way of background, sound recordings made before 1972 are not currently protected by federal copyright law, and have state law protection until 2067. To fix some real unfairness for a small group of still-living performance artists mostly from the 1960’s, this bill would give federal “pseudo-copyright” protection for digital performances for works going back to 1923. The bill would leave the rest under state law creating an even more complex and confusing legal landscape for libraries wishing to preserve these historical recordings for future generations.

Copyright law is meant to be a careful balance between creators and the public. This bill is a give away to a small group of commercial interests that leaves libraries and the public they serve behind. We hope Congress will reject this portion of the MMA.

DRM for the Web is a Bad Idea

I asked our crawler folks what the impact of the EME proposal could be to us, and what they came back with seems well reasoned but strongly negative to our mission.

I have posted the analysis below for the public to consider.


At your request we have assessed what the possible effects of the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) as a W3C recommendation would be.

We believe it will be dangerous to the open web unless protections are put in place for those who engage in activities, such as archiving, that are threatened by the legal regime governing the standard.

One major issue is that people who bypass EME, even for legitimate reasons, have reason to fear retaliation under section 1201 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and laws like it around the world, such as Article 6 of the European Union Copyright Directive, which indiscriminately bar circumvention even for lawful purposes. Locking up standards-defined video streams with digital rights management (DRM) could put our archiving activities at serious risk. DRM, which imposes technological restrictions that control what users can do with digital media, is antithetical to the open web. Moreover, EME opens the possibility that DRM could spread to non-video content such as typography or images, which poses an even more existential threat. Web archiving and the Wayback Machine would suffer.

Archiving is not the only activity endangered by anti-circumvention laws and EME: from accessibility adaptation to security research to the kinds of legitimate innovative activities that you began your career with — inventing the first search engines — the normal course of the open, standards-defined internet is incompatible with the anti-circumvention regime that comes into play if the W3C publishes EME as a recommendation.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has proposed a sensible and simple compromise: binding W3C members not to invoke anti-circumvention laws unless there is some other cause of action. This preserves the legitimate interests of rightsholders against those who trespass on their copyrights, trade secrets and contractual obligations, without turning the W3C standards process into a backdoor to creating new legal rights to prevent legitimate, vital activities.

Every organization involved in creating and preserving the open web is facing unprecedented challenges and pressures today. It is up to the guardians of the open web to meet those challenges with an unwavering commitment to our core principles: that the web must be free for anyone to write, to read, to connect to, to adapt, to archive and to preserve. As such, I recommend that we object to the publication of EME as a W3C specification without safeguarding these foundational principles of the open web.

The Internet Archive Pushes Back on “Notice and Staydown” in Recent Comments to the Copyright Office

The US Copyright Office sought comments in its ongoing study of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 512 safe harbor study. They are generally looking to find out how well the notice and takedown system is working for everyone—Internet platforms and users, as well as creators and copyright holders. We think the 1998 statute struck the right balance and is generally working well, a view shared by nearly all Internet platforms and users. However, some incumbent rightsholders and their advocacy organizations disagree and think the system needs to be completely redone because it is too hard to police copyright infringement online. These complaints fail to account for the exceeding high statutory damages rightsholders can claim and other mechanisms in copyright law that favor certain categories of rightsholders over new media creators and consumers.

One dangerous idea that rightsholders continue to push for is a “notice and staydown” system. This sounds like a minor edit to notice and takedown, but in reality it would amount to mandatory filtering of the Internet for the purpose of policing copyright. Last summer we noted many of the general reasons why this idea is both dangerous and impractical. In our most recent comments, we focus more specifically on the direct threat such a system would pose to the Internet Archive and our various projects such as the Wayback Machine and the TV News Archive:

For one thing, the Internet Archive preserves the state of any given web page as it existed on a particular date via the Wayback Machine. Being forced to automatically remove material from the Wayback Machine would irreparably harm the historical record. This would be harmful for journalists who use the Wayback Machine to report on important stories of which there would be no evidence without the Archive. It would be harmful for attorneys and litigants who regularly use the Wayback Machine as evidence in legal proceedings. The very knowledge that a filter was running on the Wayback Machine would undermine its credibility as an accurate snapshot of the Internet at a given point in time. Therefore, filtering is a direct threat to our mission.

The Internet Archive also hosts the Political TV Ad Archive and the TV News Archive. As with the Wayback Machine, the very point of these archives is to preserve the historical record and ensure that politicians can be held accountable for their statements in ads or in TV appearances. A mandatory filter run on the TV News Archive might catch a famous song used in a political ad or at a campaign rally, and determine that such material must be removed. However, this would distort the historical record. This puts the Internet Archive in the untenable position of having to choose between protecting the historical record for future generations, and protecting its own legal interests.

A notice and staydown system would do far more harm than good, making Swiss cheese of the historical record and censoring legitimate speech with overly aggressive algorithms. We will continue to monitor and push back on this proposal.

Read our full comments here.

Internet Archive files amicus brief in support of fair use and innovation in libraries









Today marks the beginning of Fair Use Week, which celebrates the importance of fair use for libraries, students, teachers, journalists, creators, and the public. Last week, the Internet Archive joined the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries on a friend of the court brief in the Capitol Records v. Redigi case. This case raises the important question about whether it is legal to resell lawful copies of digital music files—that is, whether the first sale right exists in digital form, and how that right interacts with fair use. The first sale right, codified at Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, is the same law that allows libraries to lend books and other copyrighted works to the public. As library collections become increasingly digital, libraries are relying on fair use and first sale rights in order to perform their everyday duties, including preservation and lending.

The brief argues first that the court’s fair use analysis should favor secondary uses that have the same underlying purpose as the first sale right.
“In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust… [the Second Circuit Court] used the rationale for a specific exception—17 U.S.C. § 121, which permits the making of accessible format copies for the print disabled—to support a finding of a valid purpose under the first factor. Likewise, the Copyright Office has repeatedly based fair use conclusions on specific exceptions in the context of a rulemaking under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201. As this Court did in HathiTrust or the Copyright Office did in the section 1201 rulemaking, the district court should have recognized that the purpose behind the first sale doctrine tilted the first fair use factor in favor of ReDigi.”

Second, the brief argues that a positive fair use determination in the Redigi case would enable libraries to provide new and innovative digital services to their users. The brief states:
“Fair use findings in technology cases have encouraged libraries to provide new, digitally-based services such as the HathiTrust Digital Library. In addition to enabling researchers to find relevant texts and perform critical data-mining, HathiTrust provides full-text access to over fourteen million volumes to people who have print disabilities. A fair use finding in this case would provide libraries with additional legal certainty to roll out innovative services such as the Internet Archive’s Open Library. Such a result would increase users’ access to important content without diminishing authors’ incentive to create new works.”

You can read the full text of the brief here.

Access to Knowledge in Canada

The Internet Archive Canada asked Lila Bailey to report on the policy landscape for digital libraries in Canada.   This is a summary of her report:   Looking good.

On September 30th, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind transferred accessible books in audio format to Australia through the book service of the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC). This transfer occurred without the legal obligation to request permission from the copyright owners. This effort was made possible by the Marrakesh Treaty, which creates exceptions in copyright law for the print-disabled. As we previously noted, Canada was the 20th signatory to the treaty, triggering it to enter into force.

Canada has made great strides towards increasing access to human knowledge in recent years. Judicial and legislative developments have brought balance into the law, ushering in more opportunities for public access and use of copyright protected works. And now, with the Marrakesh Treaty entering into effect, it seems a good a time to highlight Canada’s contributions to the world’s accessible digital heritage.

Our sister organization, Internet Archive Canada, has digitized more than 530,000 books, microreproductions, archival fonds, and maps. Libraries and institutions that have collaborated with, financially supported, and contributed material to IAC stretch across the entire country, from Memorial University in Newfoundland to University of Victoria in British Columbia. Internet Archive Canada has been working on accessibility projects, and has digitized more than 10,000 texts in partnership with the Accessible Content E-Portal. To date, this material has only been available to students and scholars within Ontario’s university system. Joining the Marrakesh Treaty now makes it possible for accessible versions of works to be shared more broadly within Canada, and with the other countries that have ratified the treaty.

Canadiana is another group that has helped to advance access to knowledge in Canada. Initially created by Canadian Universities in 1978 to microform National Library collections, Canadiana has more recently worked to digitize Canadian heritage with a focus mainly on public domain printed materials. The University of Toronto Library has also developed full-text digital collections, primarily consisting of public domain materials. These special collections contain a wide variety of items, including over 200,000 books, over 600 archived versions of local government websites, Canadian pamphlets and broadsides, and a fine art repository among many other materials. Similarly, the University of Alberta has developed an open access digital portal called Peel’s Prairie Provinces – a collection containing both an online bibliography of books, pamphlets and other materials related to the settlement and development of the Canadian West, as well as a searchable full-text collection of digital version of many of these materials. The portal allows access to a diverse collection that includes approximately 7,500 digitized books, over 66,000 newspaper issues, 16,000 postcards and 1,000 maps.

The above are just a few examples of Canadian efforts to bring analog materials into digital form to allow increased access to knowledge. Many more such projects can be found via the Canadian National Digital Heritage Index (CNDHI). Supported by funding from Library and Archives Canada and the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, CNDHI is designed to increase awareness of, and access to digital heritage collections in Canada, to support the academic research enterprise and to facilitate information sharing within the Canadian documentary heritage community.

These digitization activities have made significant strides towards opening access to human knowledge in Canada, however, to date, these efforts have been piecemeal. In June of 2016, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) announced a National Heritage Digitization Strategy in order “to bring Canada’s cultural and scientific heritage into the digital era to ensure that we continue to understand the past and document the present as guides to future action.” The goal of the strategy is to provide a cohesive path toward the digitization of Canadian memory institutions’ collections, thus ensuring the institutions remain relevant in the digital age by making their collections easily accessible. LAC wishes to compliment the current efforts of Canadian memory institutions such as those described above by ensuring that a national plan of action is in place.

The public policy landscape in Canada has been generally supportive of access to knowledge efforts. For example, the Canadian Supreme Court has interpreted certain legal provisions, called “fair dealing,” as expansive user rights that cannot be unduly constrained. In a case called CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Court held that it was fair dealing for the Great Library of Canada to make photocopies of court decisions on behalf of attorneys. In Alberta v. Access Copyright, the Supreme Court held that is fair dealing for teachers to copy short excerpts of copyrighted works for students in their classes. The Court found that such copying was done for the acceptable purpose of research and private study because, as a user right, the relevant perspective from which to consider the purpose was the user/student whose research and private study was furthered by the teacher’s copying. The court also held that the “amount of the dealing” factor should not be assessed in the aggregate. Instead, the court must look at the amount of the work in proportion to the length of the whole works.

In SOCAN v. Bell Canada, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles articulated in the Access Copyright case. Here, the Court held that a commercial platform allowing users to stream 30-second preview clips of musical works before they decided whether to purchase the work was also considered fair dealing for the purpose of research. The Court reiterated that the purpose must be assessed from the perspective of the user and not the commercial entity that was trying to sell the music. In each of these cases, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged fair dealing as the exercise of users’ rights that must be broadly interpreted.

As a result of these decisions, many Canadian educational institutions developed reasonable fair dealing guidelines which provide educators with a set of criteria for determining whether a particular instance of copying requires permission, or whether it is protected by fair dealing. For example, the University of Toronto’s Fair Dealing Guidelines provide a step-by-step analysis of whether a given use of a copyright protected work may be fair dealing, as well as a few more specific guidelines about what constitutes fair dealing, allowing more uses of copyrighted works without permission.

Additionally, the Canadian legislature passed the Copyright Modernization Act (CMA). The CMA added several important user-oriented provisions, including the addition of education, parody, and satire as acceptable fair dealing purposes. Taken together with the recent Supreme Court decisions discussed above, Canadian law now allows quite a bit more flexibility in using copyrighted works without permission.

The CMA allows private individuals to do more with copyright protected works without legal liability. For example, the CMA created the so-called “YouTube exception” which allows for non-commercial sharing of user-generated content that contains copyrighted material. The provision is designed to permit activity that many ordinary Internet users engage in regularly, such as creating mashups, or using a popular song in the background of a personal home video. This provision is subject to conditions (i.e., identification of the source and author, legality of the original work or the copy used, and absence of a substantial adverse effect on the exploitation of the original work).

A series of additional provisions protect consumers from liability for other “ordinary activities that are commonly accepted,” but which had previously remained illegal under Canadian copyright law. For example, the CMA now permits format shifting of personal copies of works, such as transferring a song from CD to an MP3 player. Similarly, the CMA permits time shifting of copyrighted materials for later listening, reading or viewing. Finally, the law permits individuals to make backup copies of copyrighted works, provided that, among other things, the individual does not give any of the reproductions away to others. However, each of these expansions of user-rights to permit format-shifting, time-shifting, and the creation of backup copies are all subject to the condition that the creation of the reproduction not circumvent a “technological protection measure.”  As such, they may not be as user-friendly in practice as they may appear on paper.

The CMA also expanded the use rights of libraries, museums, and archives. For example, the law now allows libraries, museums, and archives to format shift a work in its permanent collection if the original is in a format that is obsolete or the technology required to use the original is unavailable or is becoming unavailable. Further, libraries, museums, and archives can distribute certain materials digitally, provided that they take certain measures to protect the copyright owner’s rights. There is a similar allowance for unpublished works deposited in archives. The CMA also allows the use of publicly accessible online materials for educational purposes, provided that the source and author are attributed, and unless the works are protected by “digital locks.”

The CMA also revised the statutory damages provisions in a user-friendly manner. The law now distinguishes between commercial from non-commercial infringements for the purposes of statutory damages awards. Specifically, where the “infringements are for non-commercial purposes”, the court may order between $100 and $5,000 in damages “with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works.” In other words, statutory damages in a proceeding for non-commercial infringement are now limited to $5,000, no matter how many works were infringed.  Furthermore, in exercising its discretion to award statutory damages for non-commercial infringements, the court is to consider “the need for an award [of damages] to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.”

These recent developments in Canadian law, in conjunction with its ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, make the landscape ripe for further expansions of digital access to knowledge in the future. Internet Archive Canada will be exploring opportunities for partnerships and projects to bring Canada digital and help the nation to become an international leader in access to knowledge.