After two failed attempts to reform Canada's copyright law, the Government of Canada recently completed a process of consulting with Canadians and industry stakeholders over the future of copyright in Canada. Copyright law was initially intended to foster innovation in intellectual works and protect content creators from publishing companies that had the technology to mass produce copies of their work. At the time, it was easy for a publishing company to produce many copies of a book, while it was painstaking work for an individual to produce a single copy. Therefore, the laws targeted the publishing companies, rather than the individual. The Internet, however, has created a paradigm shift. It is now virtually as easy for an individual to produce one copy of an electronic book as it is to produce 1000.

Yet, in an attempt to adapt copyright law to these changing circumstances, governments are increasingly curtailing the rights of individuals to share information with their peers and build upon the huge body of work that represents the history of great minds and human achievement. The government's two previous attempts at copyright reform favored the interests of content distributors, over the rights of consumers.

Even though the recent round of copyright consultations has ended, this is no time to get complacent. The government is expected to introduce a new copyright bill in either the fall or spring session of Parliament. University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist discussed the issue of copyright reform in a speech in Vancouver on Thursday. You can listen to his talk via the player below.

The Canadian government has introduced two pieces of legislation in recent years, which would have drastically altered copyright law in this country. While neither piece of legislation made it into law, it's widely expected that a similar bill will be introduced in the future.

Critics have labeled these bills the Canadian DMCA, as they would have favored the economic interests of content  publishers over the freedoms of consumers. Michael Geist explains why such a bill would be a betrayal: