An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session)

[11] Hosts, such as ISPs, were to be absolved of legal responsibility in the event of their services being unintentionally used to provide access to copyrighted material.

[12] Methods of protecting subscriber privacy would have become legal under the proposed bill, however, the distribution of software to do so would have been illegal, effectively cancelling out the right.

[16] Proponents of the bill, including some copyright holders in the entertainment industry, called it a much needed "assurance that [investors are] protected."

[18] The MPAA and RIAA supported the proposal, as they saw it as finally bringing in Canada to WIPO standards, having lobbied/pressured hard for stricter copyright rules.

According to Brad Keenan, Director, ACTRA Performers' Rights Society and Sound Recording Division, "the Bill not only introduces the new concept of format shifting, it is also [revises] existing rules on time-shifting.

ACTRA believes that consumers should have flexibility, however, artists must be compensated for uses of their work and we don't see this part of the equation in the government releases.

"[21] Among opposition parties, Liberal MP Scott Brison, called the bill a "US-made law" that would establish a "police state.

[16] As of September 29, 2008, , more than 92,000 people had joined the Facebook group "Fair Copyright for Canada", started by law professor Michael Geist, to protest Bill C-61.

Geist's blog[24] became one of the leading sites for educational resources on copyright reform, and tools for constituents to contact their local Members of Parliament.

[25] In addition, the magazine ComputerWorld Canada ran its own petition drive, asking the government to amend the bill because it discourages experts and other coders from conducting innovative research.

[27][28] Consumer groups including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and Online Rights Canada voiced opposition on not being consulted in the creation of the bill.

[5] The Appropriation Art Coalition condemned the Bill saying, "copyright is meant to nurture the rights of creators, not suppress and criminalize artistic practice.

James Turk, the executive director said, "This could be the effective end of fair-dealing, the right to copy and use works for purposes such as research and private study.