Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

    Blog Archive

    PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
    SMTWTFS
      12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930

    Liberals Demand More Draconian IP Provisions: Propose Adding New Statutory Damages to Bill C-8

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Thursday December 05, 2013
    Liberal MP Judy Sgro continued her efforts yesterday to add lobbyist-inspired provisions to Bill C-8, the anti-counterfeiting legislation. Having already proposed removing the personal exception for travelers (leading to increased border searches) and a "simplified procedure" for the seizure of goodsthat would remove court oversight in the destruction of goods in a greater number of cases, Sgro proposed an amendment to add statutory damages with a mandatory minimum of $1,000 and a maximum of $100,000 in liability. The provision would limit the discretion of judges to order damages based on the evidence.

    The statutory damages provision was another ask for intellectual property lobby groups. As I noted in my appearance before the committee:


    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    File Sharing Lawsuits Could Lead to Clogged Courts as Canadians Rely on New Liability Caps

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Tuesday December 04, 2012
    The Canadian Internet community has been buzzing for the past week over reports that a Montreal-based company has captured data on one million Canadians who it says have engaged in unauthorized file sharing. While that represents a relatively small percentage of Internet users in Canada, the possibility of hundreds of thousands of lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement would be unprecedented and raise a host of legal and policy issues.

    My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the prospect of mass lawsuits will be of particular interest to the federal government, which just completed a major round of copyright reforms. The new copyright bill established a cap on damages that was explicitly designed to dissuade would-be litigants from targeting individuals. In fact, during hearings into the copyright reform bill, Members of Parliament were given assurances that the industry had no desire to launch file sharing lawsuits.


    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    Why Liability Is Limited: A Primer on New Copyright Damages as File Sharing Lawsuits Head To Canada

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Wednesday November 28, 2012
    Over the past couple of days, there have been multiple reports about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada, with fears that thousands of Canadians could be targeted. While it is possible that many will receive demand letters, it is important to note that recent changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability in non-commercial cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims. In fact, it is likely that a court would award far less - perhaps as little as $100 - if the case went to court as even the government's FAQ on the recent copyright reform bill provided assurances that Canadians "will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement."

    Bill C-11, the recently enacted copyright reform bill, featured several very good provisions including an expansion of fair dealing, a user generated content provision, new consumer protections, and a balanced approach to Internet provider liability. One of the most important changes to the law, however, was the creation of a cap on potential damages for non-commercial infringement. As I highlighted during debates on the bill, Canada is among a minority of countries that have any statutory damages at all for copyright infringement as most developed countries require rights holders to prove actual damages.



    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    Canadian Heritage: Why Statutory Damages Do Not Belong in Bill C-11's "Enabler" Provision

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Tuesday March 06, 2012
    The "enabler provision" has emerged as one of the major demands by copyright lobby groups, who want to see significant expansion of the current provision by including SOPA-style reforms that could target sites such as Youtube. In fact, the music industry has gone even further with demands that could create liability risk for social networking sites, search engines, blogging platforms, video sites, and many other websites featuring third party contributions. Jason Kee of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada argues that unless the enabler provision is expanded "the provision is useless." All of these demands come despite the fact that the industry is using existing law to sue isoHunt for millions of dollars under current copyright law.

    In addition to expanding the provision, the same groups want to add statutory damages to the mix (the music industry recently argued that statutory damages should be unlimited). Yet a June 2010 letter to SOCAN from Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's department indicates it is opposed to the change since it stems from a lack of understanding about how statutory damages work. The letter states:


    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     
    << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>

    Results 1 - 4 of 16