Copyright Modernization Act

During its consideration, the bill drew negative reactions from the US-based International Intellectual Property Alliance, which represents industries in movie, music, and software. In particular, the IIPA took issue with the "notice-and-notice" approach that only requires internet service providers to forward infringement notices to their subscribers, which it claims "fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment." and said it will urge the U.S government to pressure Canada for more reforms as part of the negotiations for Canada's entry into Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.[9] It also wanted Canada to repeal sections that limit statutory damages to a maximum of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement, claiming that the cap renders statutory damages "ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment."[9]

CRIA lawyer Barry Sookman who supported the Act commented on the digital lock rules. He claimed that they did not actually criminalize every day activities and that critics were misinterpreting them.[10]

Richard Stallman joins the protest by promoting a political cartoon criticizing Bill C-11 on the blog of fellow copyright reform advocate Michael Geist.

When the Act was introduced, it was criticized for "mirroring the previous bill" and bringing back anti-circumvention laws unchanged. These laws were challenged by Liberal and NDP members whose amendments were rejected in the first and second readings.[11] During the third reading, the Bloc Québécois' André Bellavance and the Green Party's Elizabeth May proposed amendments that were also turned down.[11] Critics who wanted more consultation expressed concern over the committee stage which excluded any witnesses who commented on Bill C-32.[12] Law professor Michael Geist disputed the party's statements regarding how many Canadians they consulted as well as a claim by Christian Paradis and James Moore that the Copyright Act had not changed since before 1990.[13] During the reading of the bill in the Senate, Geist delivered testimony which led to Senator Wilfred Moore proposing amendments similar to those that were rejected in the House.[14][15] These were defeated and the bill passed later that same day.

In addition to online protests, a street protest was held in Montreal.[16] Toward the end of the bill's consideration, a petition urging the government to make further changes was signed by more than 70 arts and culture organizations.[17]

I will give an example to show just how boneheaded the digital lock provisions are. If a journalist on the evening news wanted to show an excerpt from a movie that was being discussed or debated, the journalist would not be able to show that excerpt because he or she would have to break the digital lock to do it.

— Charlie Angus on October 18, 2011[18]

During debates, the extent to which the government understood the technology was questioned. On October 18, 2011, Industry Minister Christian Paradis incorrectly stated that most DVDs do not have digital locks.[19] On October 27, 2011, Conservative MP Lee Richardson in a letter used the line "If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a law suit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved".[20] Referring to this, Liberal MP Geoff Regan commented on the irony of the government advising Canadians to break its own law.[21] On June 25, 2012, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had warned Industry Canada that prohibitions against the circumvention of locks may violate freedom of expression and/or disability rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[22]