An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair)

How it changed on the way

87% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (417 words introduced, 376 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent broadened

The bill kept the core goal of letting people bypass locks for fixing products but expanded it beyond computer programs to any work that is part of the product. It added rules allowing work for others and barring use if copyright is infringed, while dropping the original clauses on making or selling repair tools.

• Scope widened from computer programs only to any work forming part of a product.

  Before: “Embedded computer programs 41.121 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure that controls access to a computer program if the person does so for the sole purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product in which the computer program is embedded.”

  After: “Diagnosis, maintenance and repair 41.121 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure for the sole purpose of maintaining or repairing a product, including any related diagnosing, if the work, performer's performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to which the technological protection measure controls access forms a part of the product.”

• New clause lets one person fix a product for another.

  After: “For greater certainty (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure in the circumstances referred to in that subsection for another person.”

• New limit bars the exception if any copyright infringement occurs.

  After: “Non-application (3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.”

• Original permission to make and sell repair tools was removed.

  Before: “Technology, device or component (2) Paragraph 41.1(1)(c) does not apply to a person who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure that controls access to a computer program if the person does so for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product in which the program is embedded and (a) uses that technology, device or component only for that purpose; or (b) provides that technology, device or component to another person solely for that purpose.”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill carves out a narrow exception to copyright's anti-circumvention rules when the sole purpose is diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product that contains the protected work. It uses objective conditions and explicitly bars the exception if any copyright infringement occurs.

Open to argument

• “a product”

  The term is left undefined, so the range of devices or goods covered must be argued from context.

• “sole purpose”

  Intent is an internal fact that can generate factual disputes even when the act itself is clear.

Clear-cut

• “if the work, performer's performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to which the technological protection measure controls access forms a part of the product”

  It ties the exception directly to a physical or functional connection rather than a vague standard.

• “A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright”

  It supplies an objective, external limit that prevents the exception from swallowing other rules.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the exception operates directly on the facts.

Challenging the law itself. The provision expands rather than restricts activity and engages no obvious Charter right such as expression or liberty.

Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether the circumvention was truly for the sole purpose of repair or whether separate infringing acts occurred.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.