TechCrunch posts an interesting interview with Lady Gaga's manager, who discusses the role of YouTube in finding and breaking new acts, including Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber.
Archive for May, 2010
Industry Minister Tony Clement introduced two bills yesterday – the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act (C-28) and the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act (C-29). I have spoken positively about C-28 (here, here, and here), which is long overdue and should receive swift passage. By contrast, C-29 is a huge disappointment. The bill is also long overdue as it features the amendments to Canadian private sector privacy law from a review that began in 2006 and concluded with a report in 2007.
Just over three years later, the government has introduced a bill that does little for Canadians' privacy, while providing new exceptions for businesses and new powers for law enforcement (David Fraser has helpfully created a redline version of PIPEDA with the proposed changes). The centrepiece of the bill is a new security breach disclosure provision, but the requirements are very weak when compared with similar laws found elsewhere. In fact, with no penalties for failure to notify security breaches, the provisions may do more harm than good since Canadians will expect to receive notifications in the event of a breach, but companies may err on the side of not notifying (given the very high threshold discussed below) safe in the knowledge that there are no financial penalties for failing to do so.
The government today introduced Bill C-28, the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. The bill carries a new name from the old Bill C-27 (which was titled the Electronic Commerce Protection Act), but the bill is roughly the same as the bill that passed the House of Commons last year. […]
The government has tabled two bills this morning focused on Internet and technology issues: C-28: Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act and C-29: Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act. More information and analysis to follow.
My op-ed in this week's Hill Times (HT version (sub req), homepage version) notes that with reports that a new copyright bill could be introduced this week, thousands of Canadians have been expressing concern with the government's plans, as there are mounting fears that the results from last summer's copyright consultation may be shelved in favour of a repeat of the much-criticized Bill C-61.
The foundational principle behind C-61 was the primacy of digital locks. When a digital lock (often referred to as digital rights management or technological protection measure) is used – to control copying, access or stifle competition – the lock supersedes virtually all other rights. The fight over the issue has pitted the tech-savvy Industry Minister Tony Clement, who has reportedly argued for a flexible implementation, against Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who has adopted what many view as an out-of-touch approach that would bring back the digital lock provisions virtually unchanged.
Moore has declined to comment on his position, but his approach raises some difficult questions: