Last week, negotiators from around the world gathered in Ottawa for negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. I was fortunate to be asked to meet with many of the intellectual property negotiators as part of a side session sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the copyright implications of the agreement. EFF’s Jeremy Malcolm and Maira Sutton write about the event here, which also included Howard Knopf and Open Media’s Reilly Yeo.
My presentation, embedded below, focused on the Canadian notice-and-notice rules for Internet service provider liability. The government recently announced that notice-and-notice will take effect in January 2015. I explained the background of the Canadian approach, how it differs from the U.S. notice-and-takedown system, and how experience demonstrates its effectiveness.
News
Notice the Difference: Canada’s Internet Provider Notice-and-Notice Rules and the TPP
Rogers Releases New Policy on Disclosing Subscriber Information: Come Back with a Warrant
Rogers has updated its approach to responding to law enforcement requests for subscriber information to reflect last month’s Supreme Court of Canada Spencer decision. The company will now require a warrant for access to basic subscriber information (with the exception of life threatening emergencies), a policy that effectively kills the government’s Bill C-13 voluntary disclosure provisions. The government wants to provide full immunity for voluntary disclosure of personal information, but Canadian Internet providers and telecom companies are unlikely to provide such information without a court order given the recent decision. The Rogers update:
After hearing your concerns and reviewing the Supreme Court ruling from last month, we’ve decided that from now on we will require a court order/warrant to provide basic customer information to law enforcement agencies, except in life threatening emergencies. We believe this move is better for our customers and that law enforcement agencies will still be able to protect the public.
CRTC Report Confirms Yet Again: Canadian Wireless Prices Among Most Expensive in G7
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission yesterday released the latest Wall Communications Report comparing prices for wireline, wireless, and Internet services in Canada and with foreign countries. While some initial reports focused on the increased wireless pricing for light wireless users (150 minutes per month with no data or texting) that was attributed to the shift from three-year contracts to two-year contracts, the bigger story is that Canadian wireless pricing is ranked among the three most expensive countries in the G7 in every tier.
The report measures four different baskets of users and for every usage Canada is one of the three most expensive countries in the survey (other countries include the US, UK, France, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Italy).
Canadians That Access U.S. Netflix May Be in a Legal Grey Zone, But They Are Not Stealing
Netflix is enormously popular in Canada with millions using the online video service. While the Canadian version of Netflix has improved the scope of available titles since it launched, there are still differences with the U.S. service, leading some subscribers to use virtual private networks to mask their address and access U.S. Netflix. Are those subscribers “stealing” something? The Globe and Mail’s Simon Houpt apparently thinks so.
This weekend he wrote a column titled Even the Content Creators are Stealing Content, which focused on content creators who unapologetically download television shows or use virtual private networks to access U.S. Netflix from Canada. Accessing the U.S. Netflix service is common in many countries including Canada (see stories on Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K.). Houpt argues that accessing the U.S. Netflix from Canada deprives creators of their fair share of earnings and make the creation of future shows less likely:
Paying for the Canadian service means your money goes to whoever holds the Canadian rights for the shows on Netflix. If you’re watching the U.S. service, the rights holders – that is, those who pay the creators to make the shows you’re actually watching – aren’t getting their fair share. That means they’re less likely to help get the next round of shows or movies green-lighted, making it harder for artists to get their projects off the ground.
Yet while the legal issues associated with accessing U.S. Netflix may be in a legal grey zone, the argument that creators are not paid seems wrong.
In Defence of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law, Part Two: Why the Legislation Is Really a Consumer Protection and Privacy Law in Disguise
My first post defending Canada’s anti-spam law focused on why spam remains a problem and how the new law may help combat fraudulent spam and target Canadian-based spamming organization. Most would agree that these are legitimate goals, but critics of the law will argue that it still goes too far since it covers all commercial electronic messages, not just fraudulent or harmful messages.
If the law were only designed to deal with harmful spam, they would be right. However, the law was always envisioned as something more than just an anti-spam bill. Indeed, when it was first introduced, it was called the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, reflecting the fact that it was expressly designed to address online consumer protection issues (the name CASL was an unofficial working name developed within Industry Canada). The law has at least three goals: provide Canada with tough anti-spam rules, require software companies to better inform consumers about their programs before installation, and update Canadian privacy standards by re-allocating who bears the cost for the use of personal information in the digital environment.
Recent Posts
Ignoring the Warning Signs: Why Did the Canadian Government Dismiss the Trade Risks of a Digital Services Tax? 
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects
