Geographical indications (GI) are signs used on goods – frequently food, wine, or spirits – that have a specific geographical origin and are said to possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. Given the quality associated with the product, proponents of GI protection argue that it is needed to avoid consumer confusion as well as to protect legitimate producers.
Last year, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released its new media decision, which addressed the prospect of increased CRTC regulation of Internet activities. After days of hearings and thousands of pages of submissions, the Commission side-stepped the pressure to "do something," maintaining a hands-off approach and punting the most contentious issue – the prospect of a new levy on Internet providers to fund Canadian content – to the courts.
The Internet levy proposal received strong support from several Canadian creator groups, who argued that given the video content streamed online, ISPs should be viewed as broadcasters within the Broadcasting Act. By treating ISPs as the equivalent of conventional broadcasters, they would be required to contribute to the Act’s policy objectives, which include promotion and support for Canadian content. The ISPs unsurprisingly opposed the proposal, maintaining that they are mere conduits in the transmission of video content. They argued the levy proposal was illegal since they are regulated under the Telecommunications Act as telecom companies, not broadcasters.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the two sides faced off at the Federal Court of Appeal earlier this year and last week a unanimous court sided with the ISPs, ruling that providing access to broadcasting is not the same as broadcasting. It concluded that so long as ISPs maintain a content-neutral approach, they fall outside of the Broadcasting Act and should not be expected to play a role in promoting the policies found in the legislation.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that “geo-blocking” has become standard practice among broadcasters, sports leagues, and music services that use technologies to identify the likely location of an Internet user in real-time and block the content in some circumstances. From World Cup broadcasts to Hulu.com (a popular U.S. video site) to Spotify (a European music service), Canadians often find themselves unable to access content and unsure who is to blame.
While some have misleadingly suggested that outdated laws are the reason behind the blocking, the reality is that geo-blocking is invariably a business issue, not a legal one. Indeed, geo-blocking occurs worldwide – U.S. residents are similarly unable to use Spotify and are blocked from accessing the CBC’s streaming coverage of the World Cup. Rather than a reaction to older laws, the geo-blocking approach is actually an attempt to preserve an older business model, namely content licencing on a country-by-country or market-by-market approach [note that I say older, not outdated – territorial licencing obviously makes financial sense in some situations].
Just as the G8-G20 meetings conclude in Muskoka and Toronto, another round of negotiations on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement resumes in Switzerland today. In the aftermath of the last round of discussions in New Zealand, a draft version of the ACTA text was publicly released, temporarily quieting criticism about the lack of transparency associated with an agreement that currently touches on all forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademark, and copyright.
While the transparency concerns are no longer in the spotlight, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that mounting opposition to the agreement from the developing world, particularly powerhouse economies such as India, China, and Brazil, is attracting considerable attention. The public opposition from those countries – India has threatened to establish a coalition of countries against the treaty – dramatically raise the political stakes and place Canada between a proverbial rock and hard place, given its close ties to the U.S. and ambition to increase economic ties with India and China.
Apple began selling the latest version of its iPhone this week in the United States and while the device will not be sold in Canada until mid-July, Canadians will be among the few that will have the opportunity to purchase it "unlocked" so that it is not tied to any specific wireless carrier. The unlocked versions will come at a premium price, but in return consumers will be able to avoid the long-term contracts that have typified the Canadian wireless marketplace for many years.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the issue of locked cellphones has long been a source of consumer fear and frustration since some wondered whether unlocking phones that were rendered unusable when switching wireless providers was legal. In certain respects, this was an odd question to even have to ask. No one would ever question whether consumers have the right to tinker with their car or to use the same television if they switch providers from cable to satellite, yet the wireless industry somehow convinced the public that unlocking their phones – consumers' own property – was wrong.
That perception is rapidly changing with several developments paving the way for an unlocked iPhone.
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill 
More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information 
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 234: “Solutions Aren’t Going to be Found Through Nostalgia”: Mark Musselman on the CRTC Hearings on Canadian Content Rules 
Here We Go Again: Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking Bill Reintroduced in the Senate (With Some Changes)
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
