arts -- I disagree. copyright law, and the types of changes that were proposed in C-61 is exceedingly complex for the average person (ie: non-corporate or non-professional) to comply with. When we talk about "fostering creativity" we are not just talking about entrepreneurship; this is why a wide berth has traditionally been given to interpreting what comprises "research" and "personal study". The changes that lobbying business interests would like to see focus only on their accumulation of wealth and the consumption by others (the non-copyright holders) of their "product". Since I work with children and adults in a non-corporate and non-academic setting, what I see is an enormous stifling of our, society's, creativity -- and this stifling comes from walking on the cautious side of copyright law. Most adults are not copyright lawyers, and most children and teens are not capable of comprehending complex legislation of any sort. What does this mean practically? It means business limiting individuals' (citizens', etc) access to works of art and creativity in ways that will stifle possible creative works. If I can't have access to the body of art that my culture is creating, without a pay-per-view digitally-managed copyright-legislated understanding of things... well, I am probably just going to walk away from it. This creates a schism, this does not foster innovation and creativity.