Canadian regulatory hearings are usually relatively predictable affairs with scripted presentations and well-rehearsed speaking lines to most questions. During the recent two-week Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing on the future of television regulation (dubbed “TalkTV” by the CRTC), Chair Jean-Pierre Blais expressed frustration on several occasions with the unwillingness of witnesses to veer much beyond their prepared notes.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that changed on the final day of the hearing, though it was Blais that seemingly departed from the script. Netflix, the online video giant that popped up in virtually every discussion, was one of the last witnesses on the schedule. The company had submitted comments to the CRTC consultation over the summer, but had not asked for an opportunity to appear before the Commission.
After the CRTC requested that it come to Gatineau to answer questions, the company came prepared to discuss the development of its business, but chafed at the prospect of disclosing confidential information such as subscriber numbers and spending on Canadian content. Blais took great umbrage at its reluctance to disclose the information, ultimately ordering the company to comply with the information request and implying that failure to do so could result in new regulation.
Read more ›
Five years ago, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission held two major hearings on new media and the Internet. The 2009 hearings, which featured contributions from the major telecom and broadcast companies in Canada, paved the way for Canadian net neutrality rules and the renewal of a regulatory exemption for new media broadcasters such as online video services.
Despite weeks of hearings, Netflix was only mentioned twice: once when it was referenced in a quote from a U.S. publication on the emergence of Internet video and a second time when a Canadian company referred to its mail-based DVD rental service.
Netflix may not have been top-of-mind in 2009, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that today it is seemingly the only thing the industry wants to talk about. New consumer choice of television channels was billed as the centerpiece of the CRTC’s future of television hearing, but witness after witness has turned it into The Netflix Show. Starting with the Ontario government, broadcasters, broadcast distributors, producers, and other creators have lined up to warn ominously about the impact of Netflix on the future of the Canadian television system.
Read more ›
Rogers Communications unveiled its plan for streaming more than 1,000 National Hockey League games on the Internet last week. Having invested billions of dollars to obtain the Canadian broadcast and Internet rights to NHL hockey, the cable giant pointed to the future of broadcast by embracing consumer demand for making games available online.
As part of the launch, Rogers Media president Keith Pelley responded to questions about the approach by stating “there’s no such thing as too much choice. Let the consumer decide what they want to watch.” Pelley was speaking about hockey streaming, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes his comments should resonate loudly this week in a broader context as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission opens its much-anticipated public hearing on the future of television in Canada.
The CRTC hearing has already generated thousands of advance comments from major stakeholders and individual Canadians. It has also unleashed considerable angst from established broadcasters, broadcast distributors, and content creators, who fear that the broadcast regulator will overhaul the current system by implementing changes such as mandatory pick-and-pay channel selection for consumers and reforms to longstanding policies such as simultaneous substitution (which allows Canadian broadcasters to substitute Canadian commercials into U.S. licensed programming).
Read more ›
Last year, the federal government trumpeted anti-counterfeiting legislation as a key priority. The bill raced through the legislative process in the winter and following some minor modifications after committee hearings, seemed set to pass through the House of Commons. Yet after committee approval, the bill suddenly stalled with little movement throughout the spring.
Why did a legislative priority with all-party approval seemingly grind to a halt?
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) suggests that the answer appears to stem from the appointment of Bruce Heyman as the new U.S. ambassador to Canada. During his appointment process, Heyman identified intellectual property issues as a top priority and as part of his first major speech as ambassador, singled out perceived shortcomings in the anti-counterfeiting bill.
Read more ›
Canadian privacy law has long been reliant on the principle of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The principle is particularly important with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is grounded in a reasonable expectation of privacy in a free and democratic society.
The reasonable expectation of privacy standard provides a useful starting point for analysis, but the danger is that privacy rights can seemingly be lost with little more than a contractual provision indicating that the user has no privacy. Indeed, if privacy rights can disappear based on a sentence in a contract that few take the time to read (much less assess whether they are comfortable with), those rights stand on very shaky ground.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the limits of the reasonable expectation of privacy standard emerged in a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal case involving the search of a courier package that contained illegal drugs. The court rejected claims of an illegal search, concluding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite the fact that he had no commercial relationship with the courier company and had never agreed to, or even viewed, the terms of the contract.
Read more ›