Columns

The Letters of the Law: 2010 in Tech Law from A to Z

The past twelve months in law and technology were exceptionally active, with the passage of anti-spam legislation, record penalties for violating the do-not-call list, and relentless lobbying on new Canadian copyright legislation. A look back at 2010 from A to Z (Toronto Star version, homepage version):

A is for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which concluded in October with a watered-down treaty after the U.S. caved on several controversial Internet issues.

B is for Black v. Breeden, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling involving postings on the Hollinger International, Inc. website that Conrad Black claimed were defamatory.

C is for Crookes v. Newton, the high-profile Supreme Court case that addressed the liability hyperlinks between websites.

D is for the do-not-call list, which gained new life when the CRTC pressured Bell into paying $1.3 million for multiple violations of the list rules.

E is for the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, the initial name of Canada’s anti-spam legislation that received royal assent in December, six years after a task force recommended new Canadian spam laws.

December 28, 2010 — 12 comments — Columns

Canadian Education Faces Technology Tipping Point

Canadian universities and colleges have undergone a remarkable technological transformation over the past decade. Ten years ago laptops were relatively rare in classrooms, yet today virtually every student comes to buildings outfitted with electric outlets and Internet connectivity at each seat equipped with one. Course websites were once little more than places to post a syllabus and a list of readings, but today they feature podcasts, webcasts, the actual course readings, and space for ongoing discussion and debate.

While technology has become a core part of the educational process, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes it has often been treated as a complement â€“ rather than a replacement â€“ for traditional educational materials. Libraries still spend hundreds of millions of dollars on physical books and journals, some professors still generate paper-based coursepacks, and the schools themselves still pay millions of dollars in copying licensing fees.

The two-track approach may have made initial sense, but the costs of maintaining both are increasingly forcing universities to consider whether technology can replace conventional approaches. The tipping point toward using technology as a replacement may have come this year when Access Copyright, the copyright collective that licenses copying on Canadian campuses, demanded a significant increase in the fees associated with photocopying articles and producing printed coursepacks.

December 23, 2010 — 11 comments — Columns

Canadian Courts Set High Bar for Privacy Damage Awards

When privacy violations occur, the first reaction for many victims is to search for a way to stop the offending conduct. The second response may be to invoke the law by filing a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Hundreds of complaints are filed every year and most are resolved with an explanation for what occurred, a change in corporate policy, or occasionally a formal apology. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that a growing number of complainants have been left unsatisfied with this outcome, however, and are turning to the courts for damage awards.

Two recent Federal Court decisions grappled with the issue of damage awards for privacy violations and arrived at the same conclusion – personal privacy is not worth much when it comes actual compensation for privacy breaches or abuses.

November 30, 2010 — 13 comments — Columns

Separating Copyright Facts from Fiction Ahead of Legislative Hearings

Canadian copyright law promises to dominate discussion in Ottawa over the coming weeks as hearings on Bill C-32, the controversial copyright bill, are set to begin within a few days. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that if the past six months are any indication, Members of Parliament will be asked to sort through confusing rhetoric in order to understand the implications of the proposed changes. Separating fact from fiction will not be easy, but getting straight answers to the following questions will be crucial:

1. Will Bill C-32 give education institutions the right to engage in massive uncompensated copying?

No. The inclusion of education as a fair dealing category will not mean that any educational copying will be free. It will only mean that educational copying will be eligible for analysis under a six-part test developed by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the copying qualifies as fair dealing. The changes in Bill C-32 are more modest than often claimed as they merely fill some gaps in the existing list of fair dealing categories.

November 23, 2010 — 18 comments — Columns