Blog

Government Launches Consultation on Rules for ISP Notice-and-Notice System Amid Shift in Priorities

Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage launched a consultation yesterday on the rules associated with the Internet service provider notice-and-notice system that was established in Bill C-11, the copyright reform bill enacted in June 2012. Responses to the consultation are due by November 8, 2013. Most of the bill took effect in November 2012, but the government delayed implementation of the ISP rules, with expectation of a consultation and regulations to follow. It has taken nearly a full year, but the consultation was sent to undisclosed stakeholders with the promise to bring the notice-and-notice system into effect “in the near future.”

The notice-and-notice system allows copyright owners to send infringement notices to ISPs, who will be legally required to forward the notification to their subscribers. If an ISP fails to forward the notifications, it must explain why or face the prospect of damages that run as high as $10,000. ISPs must also retain information on the subscriber for six months (or 12 months if court proceedings are launched). Copyright owners may also send notifications to search engines, who must remove content that has been removed from the original source within 30 days. The notices must meet a prescribed form that includes details on the sender, the copyright works and the alleged infringement.

Despite some expectation that the consultation would place several issues on the table – form issues for notices, data retention, and costs for notices among them – the language used in the consultation letter suggests that the government is likely to simply bring the rules as articulated in the law into effect with no further regulations at all. It states:

October 10, 2013 — 42 comments — News

Canadian Government Quietly Pursuing New ISP Code of Conduct

With the cost of cybercrime in Canada on the rise – a new report released last week by Symantec, a security software vendor, pegged the cost at $3.1 billion annually – my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) reports that the Canadian government is quietly working behind-the-scenes to create a new Internet service provider code of conduct. If approved, the code would be technically be voluntary for Canadian ISPs, but the active involvement of government officials suggests that most large providers would feel pressured to participate.

The move toward an ISP code of conduct would likely form part of a two-pronged strategy to combat malicious software that can lead to cybercrime, identity theft, and other harms. First, the long-delayed anti-spam legislation features new disclosure requirements for the installation of software along with tough penalties for non-compliance. Recent comments from Industry Minister James Moore suggest that the government is ready to bring that law into effect. Second, the code of conduct would require participants to provide consumers with assistance should their computers become infected.

October 9, 2013 — 7 comments — Columns

Who Is Watching the Watchers?: A Panel on Canadian Privacy and Surveillance

The University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law will be hosting a panel featuring University of Ottawa faculty on Canadian privacy and surveillance on October 16th from 11:30 – 1:00 titled Who Is Watching the Watchers? I’ll be participating on the panel along with Craig Forcese, Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves, and […]

October 9, 2013 — 1 comment — News

Public Safety Foreshadowed Rejection of MTS Allstream-Accelero With 2011 Foreign Investment Concerns

On the same day that revelations about CSEC spying on the Brazilian government for economic purposes generated headlines around the world, the Canadian government rejected the proposed acquisition of MTS Allstream’s Allstream division by Accelero Capital Holdings, a company co-founded by Naguib Sawiris, an Egyptian billionaire who first captured Canadian […]

October 8, 2013 — 4 comments — News

The Untold Story Behind the LAC-Canadiana Digitization Plan

The need for a large-scale Canadian digitization strategy has been readily apparent for many years, with experts repeatedly pointing to the benefits that would come from improved access to Canadian history and culture. While other countries have marched ahead with ambitious projects that often incorporate historical text records, photographs, and video, Canada has fallen behind.

Library and Archives Canada, which is charged with preserving and making accessible Canada’s documentary heritage, has led the digitization effort, but most of its work over the past decade has failed to bear much fruit.

Given the past disappointments, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the launch a massive new digitization project should have been a cause for celebration. Last June, the LAC and Canadiana, an alliance of public and academic libraries focused on digital preservation, announced plans to digitize and create metadata on 60 million historical Canadian documents. The documents are currently in microfiche and the project envisions digitizing the images and adding transcriptions and metadata (data about data content) to improve their searchability.

Yet as the details of the project dubbed HÃ©ritage leaked out, controversy arose with concerns that the historical documents would be placed behind a paywall that would require individual Canadians to pay monthly fees for access. That generated a significant outcry from many groups, with then-Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore assuring the House of Commons that the new head of LAC would closely examine the project.

After the outcry subsided, however, HÃ©ritage began to proceed largely as planned. The key supporters of the project – Canadiana, the major library associations, and the LAC – tried to assure critics that their concerns were unfounded, promising to make the digitized microfiche copies freely available to all and restricting additional fees to value-added services such as transcription or metadata. However, newly obtained documents under the Access to Information Act raise troubling questions about public access and promises of exclusivity made by the LAC.

October 1, 2013 — 12 comments — Columns