As noted in last week's column, Canada finds itself lagging more than two years behind the United States in the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting, a process that could leave millions of Canadians without access to over-the-air television signals. While the elimination of "free TV" would spark outrage in many communities, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) the most harmful effect of the slow migration will be felt in the competitiveness of Canadian telecommunications, not broadcasting.
Columns
Blurry Outlook for Canadian Digital TV Transition
Earlier this week, hundreds of U.S. television stations plan to shut down their analog broadcasts as they complete the transition to digital over-the-air broadcasts. While the U.S. had planned for a nationwide change this month, last minute legislation has delayed the full mandatory transition until mid-June. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the U.S. experience to date highlights what should be a major concern for Canada – the transition from analog to digital broadcasts is years behind the U.S. with virtually no industry or government support. This sounds like a purely technical issue, yet the policy implications of that transition will have a profound effect on both the national broadcast and telecom landscape.
Peeking Behind Canada’s Copyright Complaint Against China at the WTO
Late last month, the World Trade Organization released a much-anticipated decision involving a U.S.-led complaint against China over its intellectual property laws. Canada was among a number of countries that participated in the case, which alleged that China’s domestic laws, border measures, and criminal penalties for intellectual property violations do not comply with its international treaty obligations.
On April 25, 2007, David Emerson, then the Minister of International Trade, issued a press release announcing Canada's participation, stating that it was "based on concerns expressed by Canadian stakeholders on a range of issues related to China's intellectual property rights regime." Yet, as reported in my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) according to dozens of internal Canadian government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, Canadian officials, unable to amass credible evidence of harm to Canadian interests, harboured significant doubts about the wisdom of joining the case and ultimately did so only under the weight of great pressure from the United States.
Canada’s Do-Not-Call Disaster
When Canada's do-not-call list was launched last September, two outcomes were easy to predict. The first was that the list would prove enormously popular with millions of phone numbers registered in a matter of months. The second was that Canadians would ultimately be left disappointed with little reduction in unwanted telemarketing calls and concerns about the ability of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications to enforce the law. Four months later, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the do-not-call list contains roughly six million registered phone numbers and, as expected, there are a growing number of Canadians – including Industry Minister Tony Clement – who are expressing misgivings about the potential for abuse.
The problems associated with the do-not-call list fall into three categories.
Canada Post Plays Grinch in Takedown Fight
Late last year, Canada Post and the Public Service Alliance of Canada became embroiled in a heated strike action over sick pay benefits. In the midst of the dispute, several PSAC members took direct aim at Canada Post CEO Moya Greene, recording a short parody video titled "The Greench." The video, which was posted on YouTube, adapted the well-known Dr. Seuss tune "You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" to criticize Greene and the company. While the creation of a protest video is not particularly noteworthy, what followed soon after is. Just as the video began to attract some attention, YouTube removed it after receiving a complaint from Canada Post alleging that the video violated the company’s copyright.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the case highlights a common occurrence under U.S. law, which allows copyright owners to file complaints with web hosts such as YouTube if they believe that the site is hosting infringing content. Under the law, the web host avoids liability if it immediately removes the content. No court or independent third party reviews the infringement claim since nothing more than a complaint that meets certain criteria is needed. The statutory requirements include providing a statement that the complainant has a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of its not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law."
Recent Posts
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) 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 233: Abdi Aidid on AI, the Law and the Future of Legal Practice 
When the Drumbeat of Intolerance Becomes Too Loud to Ignore: Reflections on Campus Antisemitism, Academic Freedom and My Global Technology Law Exchange Course 
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada
