We believe anti-circumvention measures encourage and support the use of digital locks and litigation against music fans. Thus, we oppose the inclusion of such measures in legislative reform. Copyright laws must accommodate the interests of Canadian music creators. We support our fans’ legitimate interests in having a say in how they enjoy our music, and policy decisions should take this into account. Policies that fail to accommodate such interests should be rejected.
The CRTC analysis involves a two-step process. First, it considers whether an undertaking has given itself a preference or subjected another person to a disadvantage. If it finds a preference, it moves to a second step to determine whether the preference is undue. Note that the burden of demonstrating that the preference was not undue rests with the undertaking that has granted it.
In this case, the Commission found that Bell granted itself a preference by entering into an exclusive contract for NHL and NFL programming. Note that the NFL programming is not something that Bell produces or otherwise owns. There is also no indication that the Bell’s wireless access to the NFL is linked to similar licenses for its broadcasting properties (Bell says the NFL deal was concluded before its purchase of CTV). If this constitutes a preference, then any exclusive contract will seemingly rise to the level of a preference and the party that enters into it may be faced with the burden of demonstrating that it is not an undue preference (which appears to be precisely what the Commission has in mind).
The choice of whether or not to use a TPM in connection with controlling access to a copyright protected work or which restricts copyright protected acts rests with rightsholders. Some will choose to use them, others will not. In accordance with the WIPO Treaties, rightsholders should have recourse against persons who deliberately circumvent their TPMs. By the same token, users who have legal access to a work should not be prevented by TPMs from availing themselves of statutory exceptions or limitations. Moreover, legal protection for TPMs should be subject to privacy, interoperability, and encryption research considerations, for example.
NDP MP and party leadership candidate Romeo Saganash posts a piece in the Huffington Post that expresses concern with the digital lock rules in Bill C-11.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Toews’ stance in the face of widespread criticism from the privacy community and opposition parties is likely to be accompanied by a series of shaky justifications for the legislation.
For example, the bill will mandate the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight – that is, without a warrant. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. Toews has argued that the mandated information is akin to “phone book data” that is typically publicly available without restriction.
Yet the legislation extends far beyond phone book information by requiring the disclosure of eleven different items including customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers. Many Canadian courts have recognized the privacy interests associated with this data.
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
