|
Wednesday December 21, 2011 |
The past 12 months in law and technology were exceptionally active,
with legislative battles over privacy and copyright, near-continuous
controversy at the CRTC, and an active Supreme Court of Canada docket.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) takes a look back at 2011 from A to Z:
A is for the Amazon one-click patent, which is at the centre of a long
running fight over the validity of business method patents in
Canada.
B is for Baglow
v. Smith, an Ontario Superior Court decision which
ruled that comments on a blog should not necessarily give rise to a
claim in defamation, when the person alleging defamation has a right of
reply in the same blog.
C is for Century 21, which won a major
case over Rogers Communications
and its real estate search site Zoocasa. The case included important
findings on online contracts, trespass, and copyright.
2011, year in review Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday December 21, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|
Wednesday December 21, 2011 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on December 18, 2011 as The Year in Tech Law, From
A to Z
The past 12 months in law and technology were exceptionally active,
with legislative battles over privacy and copyright, near-continuous
controversy at the CRTC, and an active Supreme Court of Canada docket.
A look back at 2011 from A to Z:
A is for the Amazon one-click patent, which is at the centre of a long
running fight over the validity of business method patents in Canada.
B is for Baglow v. Smith, an Ontario Superior Court decision which
ruled that comments on a blog should not necessarily give rise to a
claim in defamation, when the person alleging defamation has a right of
reply in the same blog.
C is for Century 21, which won a major case over Rogers Communications
and its real estate search site Zoocasa. The case included important
findings on online contracts, trespass, and copyright.
D is for the digital television transition, which finally occurred on
August 31st.
E is for eHarmony, the online dating site that was the subject of a
privacy commissioner investigation leading to changes to its customer
data deletion practices.
F is for false news, which erupted as a controversy after the CRTC
quietly proposed a significant change to the rules on false or
misleading news broadcasts on radio or television.
G is for Adam Guerbuez, the Montreal-based spammer who mocked the
government as it delayed finalizing anti-spam regulations that are
needed to bring the law into effect.
H is for Hurt Locker lawsuits, which made their way to Canada with
dozens of file sharing legal actions launched against individuals in
Quebec.
I is for the iPod tax, which surprisingly emerged as an election issue
during the spring campaign.
J is for Jon Newton, whose case on liability for hyperlinking led to a
landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision against creating such
liability.
K is for Jason Koblovsky, the founder of the Canadian Gamers
Organization, which filed a complaint against Rogers Communications
over interference with online games arising from its throttling
practices.
L is for Leon’s Furniture, which successfully argued that a vehicle
licence number is not "personal information" within the context of
Canadian privacy law because it is not about an individual.
M is for misleading advertising, which the Competition Bureau
aggressively pursued in a claim against Bell. Bell agreed to pay $10
million, the maximum permitted under the Competition Act, and cover
$100,000 in investigation expenses.
N is for Netflix, which fuelled a contentious regulatory battle at the
CRTC on the implications of over-the-top video services.
O is for Open Media, the Vancouver-based advocacy group that
spearheaded the fight against Internet provider usage based billing
practices.
P is for Industry Minister Christian Paradis’s Penske File, the
long-lost digital economy strategy that languished in 2011.
Q is for Telus Communications v. Queen, a case headed to the Supreme
Court over the issue of whether police can use a general warrant to
intercept SMS text messages.
R is for the Royal Bank of Canada, which was ordered to pay $4,500 for
violating Canadian privacy laws in the disclosure of account
information to a spouse embroiled in a bitter divorce proceeding.
S is for security breach disclosure legislation, which was
re-introduced in Bill C-12.
T is for the twittering Treasury Board, which released Guidelines for
External Use of Web 2.0, offering specific guidance on the use of
social media and other Web 2.0 tools by government departments.
U is for Universal Music Canada, one of several major record labels to
settle the largest copyright class action lawsuit in Canadian history.
The labels agreed to pay more than $50 million to settle claims that
they used sound recordings without paying the applicable royalties.
V is for vertical integration rules, which restrict the ability of
newly converged broadcast and telecom companies to establish exclusive
arrangements for popular content.
W is for the warrantless disclosure of customer information, one of the
most troubling aspects of forthcoming lawful access legislation.
X is for Xplornet Communications, the satellite Internet provider that
was the source of the longest running net neutrality complaint at the
CRTC.
Y is for York University, one of dozens of Canadian universities that
opted-out of the Access Copyright licence for copying materials on
campus.
Z is for Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP, a law firm that was found
to have violated Canadian privacy law by posting on its website a
previous report of findings from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
along with a cover letter that identified the complainant.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
2011, year in review Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday December 21, 2011 |
|
|
Tuesday January 11, 2011 |
Predictions about the upcoming year in technology law and policy in
Canada are particularly challenging given the prospect of a possible
election. My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes that while there is no shortage of potential new
laws - bills on
privacy, copyright, and lawful access are all before the House of
Commons - an election call before the fall would likely mean that those
bills would die on the order paper.
With political uncertainty clouding even the best crystal ball, the
Supreme Court of Canada is set to emerge this year as the place where
much of the action will take place. Canada’s highest court has
lined
up a tech-heavy docket that will have a major impact Canadian law.
2011, supreme court, technology law Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday January 11, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday January 11, 2011 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on January 9, 2011 as Supreme Court Will Lead Tech
Law in 2011
Predictions about the upcoming year in technology law and policy in
Canada are particularly challenging given the prospect of a possible
election. While there is no shortage of potential new laws -
bills on privacy, copyright, and lawful access are all before the House
of Commons - an election call before the fall would likely mean that
those bills would die on the order paper.
With political uncertainty clouding even the best crystal ball, the
Supreme Court of Canada is set to emerge this year as the place where
much of the action will take place. Canada’s highest court has
lined up a tech-heavy docket that will have a major impact Canadian
law.
First up is a series of decisions arising from hearings last
fall. These include Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc.,
a trademark law case that raises questions about the standard for
likelihood of confusion between two competing trademarks. There are
also several cases involving access to government information under the
Access to Information Act. With the mounting interest in open
government and access to public documents, the cases will help identify
how far the current legislation extends.
The most anticipated Internet law decision is Crookes v. Newton, a case
that will determine the potential liability for hyperlinking.
Given the widespread use of links in emails, webpages, Facebook
updates, and Twitter postings, the prospect of being held legally
responsible for the content on the page being linked to could have a
chilling effect on Internet speech.
The court has already agreed to address at least two additional cases
this year with major implications for the Internet. In March, it
will be asked to consider the limits of Internet jurisdiction in an
appeal of Black v. Breeden, Conrad Black’s lawsuit over postings such
as press releases and reports on the Hollinger International, Inc.
website that he claims were defamatory.
When Black sued the company’s directors, advisers, and one company
employee for defamation in Ontario, the defendants in the case brought
a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the
province was not the appropriate venue for the case since both
Hollinger and Black are located in the U.S. In a unanimous
decision issued last summer, the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with
Black, noting that the press releases posted on the Internet
specifically provided contact information for Canadian media and that
the company "clearly anticipated that the statements would be read by a
Canadian audience and invited Canadian media to respond."
Later this year, the court will hear at least one case that examines
the scope of the Copyright Act’s fair dealing provision. At issue is
whether "research" within fair dealing can be extended to song previews
that are made available on sites like iTunes where a consumer can
freely listen to roughly 30 seconds of a song.
The Copyright Board of Canada ruled in 2007 that a broad and liberal
interpretation of fair dealing meant that it could be included since
the preview was effectively consumer research on whether to purchase
the song. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the Copyright
Board's interpretation last May, opening the door to many other
consumer research possibilities under the current fair dealing
provision.
With a second fair dealing case involving copying in schools also a
distinct possibility for a high court hearing, the Supreme Court is set
to play a lead role in technology law in 2011 regardless of what
transpires on the political front.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
2011, supreme court, technology law Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday January 11, 2011 |
|
|
