[3] On November 29, 2005, the opposition to the government tabled a non-confidence motion which passed, dissolving Parliament and effectively killing the bill.
It also included updates addressing short-term copyright reform issues dealing with the "challenges and opportunities presented by the Internet and digital technology in general".
[4] These focused on subjects such as network service provider liability, remote technology-based learning, and digital inter-library loans.
Instead of explicitly prohibiting circumvention of TPMs, Bill C-60 provided remedies to copyright holders in the event of a TPM being compromised.
However, it required network service providers to operate by a notice-and-notice system: allegations of copyright infringement needed to be forwarded to the subscriber.
The bill required the network service provider retain subscriber identity records for six months upon receipt of an infringement notice and for one year in the event of legal proceedings.
However, for the average consumer, the provisions removed rights, and control over the use, duplication, distribution, display, and derivations of such commissioned works were greatly compromised.
In contrast, the DMCA prescribes a system of notice-and-takedown in order for network service providers to be exempt from infringement liability.