An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability)

How it changed on the way

99% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (226 words introduced, 509 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent broadened

The bill expanded who may circumvent technological protection measures and for what purposes, removing ownership and licensing limits while adding direct interoperability rights and information-sharing rules. New limitations and infringement safeguards were inserted that did not exist at introduction.

• Removed requirement that the person must own or hold a licence for the program.

  Before: “a person who (a) owns a computer program or a copy of one, or has a licence to use the program or copy, and who circumvents”

  After: “a person who circumvents a technological protection measure that protects a lawfully obtained computer program”

• Added option to circumvent directly to make a program or device interoperable, not only to obtain information.

  Before: “for the purpose of obtaining information and allowing the person to make the program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable”

  After: “for the purpose of (a) obtaining information that would allow the person to make the program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component; or (b) making the program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component.”

• Added new rules permitting sharing of interoperability information with others.

  After: “A person referred to in paragraph (1)(a) may communicate the information obtained under that paragraph to another person for the purposes of allowing that person to make the computer program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component.”

• Added multiple new subsections barring the exceptions if copyright or other laws are infringed.

  After: “A person is not entitled to benefit from the exceptions under subsection (1) or (6) if, for the purposes of making the computer program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component, the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill replaces specific subsections with enumerated conditions and limitations tied to lawful obtainment and non-infringement. It relies on purpose-based tests that remain open to factual dispute but avoids broad official discretion.

Open to argument

• “obtaining information that would allow the person to make the program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable”

  The phrase uses a purpose test that requires proof of intent and future use rather than an objective observable act.

• “does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright”

  The clause incorporates an external legal standard without defining its application in this context, inviting argument over whether a given act crosses the line.

Clear-cut

• “Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technological protection measure that protects a lawfully obtained computer program”

  The exception is narrowly tied to a specific paragraph and a clear precondition of lawful obtainment.

• “A person is not entitled to benefit from the exceptions under subsection (1) or (6) if, for the purposes of making the computer program or a device in which it is embedded interoperable with any other computer program, device or component, the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.”

  The non-application rule is stated in exhaustive numbered subsections with explicit cross-references.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all conditions and limits are set directly in the statute.

Challenging the law itself. The text expands an existing statutory exception without creating new prohibitions, so a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter would face a high threshold.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether their acts met the stated purpose or crossed into infringement, but the numbered limitations and cross-references limit the range of plausible arguments.

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.