Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP
Copyright
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles
The CRTC yesterday released its much-anticipated Online Streaming Act decision that has been years in the making. Given the likely opposition from many stakeholders, it is virtually certain to lead to protracted trade and legal battles. From the moment the government introduced Bill C-10 in 2020, its goal was to impose regulatory obligations on Internet streaming services, treating them as online broadcasters and mandating that they pay into the Canadian system. This week’s ruling puts a number on the payments, building on an earlier 5% interim levy with an additional 10% in expenditure requirements. The combined 15% places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services, with consequences that will undoubtedly affect consumer streaming prices. Moreover, with the streaming services already challenging the interim 5% levy in court, they will undoubtedly challenge this one as well. In fact, the battle will not be limited to Canadian litigation. The U.S. government, which has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to the Online Streaming Act, will view this decision as a provocation and escalate pressure on Canada to drop the legislation altogether. Culture Minister Marc Miller appeared to hedge in his reaction to the decision, suggesting that the government sees the headaches that lie ahead.
Addressing the AI Policy Challenge: My Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
Earlier this week, I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications as part of its study on AI regulation. This follows earlier appearances before the House of Commons Heritage and Industry committees on the same issue. The hearing led to robust exchanges with multiple Senators on the intersection of AI policy with issues such as privacy, copyright, online harms, and sovereignty. I plan to post clips from the hearing in a future Law Bytes podcast, but in the meantime, my opening statement provides a good sense of my views on AI regulation with respect to privacy, copyright, and the need for an AI Transparency Act. A video of the opening statement is embedded below, followed by the text.
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds
Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the Federal Court had issued a major decision on the relationship between fair dealing and digital locks, concluding that copyright’s anti-circumvention rules do not trump user rights (podcast on the case here). That decision, Blacklock’s Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, was a big win for user rights because, for the first time, a court ruled that Canada’s anti-circumvention rules (aka digital lock rules) were subject to fair dealing. Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that judgment, ruling that the declarations in the lower court decision should never have been issued in the first place because they lacked “practical utility.” In basic terms, the case was “moot” since Blacklock’s had tried to withdraw the lawsuit and did not require a ruling. But while rights holders seem ready to celebrate, the reality is that the new ruling does not say the Federal Court was wrong on any of the substantive copyright questions.
Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: What Lies Behind the U.S. Trade Battle For Control over Data
My Globe and Mail op-ed begins by noting that the Trump administration’s emphasis on tariffs continues to garner headlines, but a more consequential trade battle over data control is playing out with far less public attention. Last week, the U.S. released its annual report on trade barriers and for the first time, Canada was listed alongside dozens of other countries for seeking greater control over its own data. The message is clear: When countries enact laws that restrict where data is stored and who can access that information, the U.S. treats them as a trade threat.
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
From the moment it was first introduced as Bill C-10 in the fall of 2020, it was readily apparent that mandated payments by foreign streaming services to support Canadian content would face a trade backlash with the U.S., with the real prospect of trade retaliation. In fact, I wrote about the issue days after the bill was tabled, warning that an uneven playing field for benefits – foreign companies required to contribute but banned from benefiting – was a risky approach. Those warnings were dismissed by the government, cultural lobby groups, and supporters of the bill who assured critics that Canada’s cultural exemption under CUSMA provided a shield against U.S. retaliation.
It took years for Bill C-10 – later Bill C-11 – to become law as the Online Streaming Act, but now the bill has come due. Weeks after the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) specifically identified Canadian digital laws as a target in CUSMA renegotiations, House Republicans introduced the Protecting American Streaming and Innovation Act, a bill that would mandate an investigation into the Canadian law and open the door not only to trade retaliation but also to a change in how the cultural exemption is applied.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 269: Inside the Bill C-22 Committee Hearing for the Case Against Government’s Lawful Access Plans 
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles 
The Government Tries to Make the Case for Bill C-22: Why Its Own Use Cases Reveal Disproportionate Overreach 
Tech Exodus: Why Bill C-22’s Privacy and Security Risks Will Drive Digital Services Out of the Country 
The Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails
