copyright takedown notice by Andrew Allingham (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/bw9zNC

copyright takedown notice by Andrew Allingham (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/bw9zNC

Must Reads

Canadian Copyright Notice-and-Notice System to Take Effect in 2015

The government today announced that there will be no additional regulations associated with the notice-and-notice rules that provide rights holders with the ability to have Internet providers forward notifications to subscribers alleging infringement. The government had delayed implementation of the rules amid a consultation on the issue. The notice-and-notice system does not require the ISP to disclose the subscriber’s personal information to the rights holder nor to takedown the content. The system, which other countries are now considering due to its effectiveness, is set to take effect on January 1, 2015.

5 Comments

  1. Graham Blake says:

    Demand Notices
    Do we know if there are going to be any further clarifications on the format those notices must take, and whether the Rightscorp style demand notices qualify as legitimate for the purposes of the notice and notice regime? I work for a fair sized independent ISP, and Rightscorp has been absolutely burying us with these notices for the past month. So far we have refused to forward their notices to customers, given the state of limbo the notice and notice system was in. We are not going to participate or be complicit in this extortion scheme unless absolutely forced to by law.

  2. Eo Nomine says:

    Graham, the required form and content of the notices are set out in s. 41.25 of the Act. If a notice is compliant, an ISP is obligated to 1) forward the notice to the user, 2) inform the rightsholder its been forwarded, and 3) retain identification information for 6 months. If an ISP fails to do this, it is liable for statutory damages between $5000 & $10000.

  3. Graham Blake says:


    Eo, I am aware of ISP obligations under 41.25, but the demand notices are a different beast than merely a notice of infringement. They are a demand for payment. It is not perfectly clear that they fall under these provisions in their current form. It is also not perfectly clear (to me) if ISPs have the right to remove the demand for payment, and forward along only the notice of infringement to customers, including only the details outlined in 41.25(2). The devil is, as they say, in the details. These are the specific points I am trying to get clarification on.

  4. What do you m ean
    ROgers is already doing this. Why is this announcement coming out if Rogers and some other ISP’s are already doing it? Can somebody please clarify the announcement?

  5. Many thanks for your article ! This article is very interresting !
    http://voyagevietnambn.com