Archive for March, 2014

The CRTC’s Future of Television Consultation: The Missing Provocative Questions

Last month, I blogged about the CRTC’s Talk TV consultation and concerns that the questions were framed in a lopsided manner.  CRTC Chair Jean Pierre Blais was asked about those concerns in Twitter chat and he responded that the questions and answers “were intended to be provocative.” I address that response in my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) highlighting both the concerns with the survey and offering some additional provocative questions that the Commission excluded.

The column begins by noting that regulation of Internet video services and the prospect of pick-and-pay television channels headline the second phase of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s future of television consultation which launched late last month. The “TalkTV” initiative is designed to make it easy for Canadians to participate, featuring six short scenarios followed by a limited number of choices for respondents.

Read more ›

March 5, 2014 5 comments Columns

The Future of Television Consultation Omits the Big Question: Do We Still Need the CRTC?

Appeared in the Toronto Star on March 1, 2014 as Do We Still Need the CRTC? The regulation of Internet video services and the prospect of pick-and-pay television channels headline the second phase of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s future of television consultation which launched late last month. The […]

Read more ›

March 5, 2014 Comments are Disabled Columns Archive

Copyright Users’ Rights in Canada Hits Ten: The Tenth Anniversary of the CCH Decision

As Meera Nair noted last week, today marks the tenth anniversary the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada. A decade after its release, the case has grown in stature as the leading the users’ rights copyright decision by a high court in the world. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice McLachlin stated:

the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. As Professor Vaver, supra, has explained, at p. 171: ‘User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.’

The articulation of fair dealing as a users’ right represented a remarkable shift, emphasizing the need for a copyright balance between the rights of creators and the rights of users. While this approach unquestionably strengthened fair dealing, the immediate reaction to the CCH was somewhat mixed.

 

Read more ›

March 4, 2014 2 comments News