According to Access Copyright “it’s virtually impossible to ‘opt-out’ of the interim tariff. The only way an institution would be able to ‘opt-out’ would be an absolute ban on all copying.” This is simply false and it is stunning to see Access Copyright advise major publishers that that is the case (along with advice that publishers tell universities that the interim tariff is the only option – “take it or leave it”).
CIRA has announced changes to the dot-ca domain name dispute resolution policy. The changes expand the scope of bad faith, but also eliminate the need for use for generic domain names. The changes take effect on August 22nd.
The Mexican Senate has voted against ratifying the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The vote comes on the heels of a European report that cautions against implementing ACTA without changes to EU law and guidelines for EU member state implementation.
Kim Weatherall has published a paper assessing the legal impact of the intellectual property provisions of the Trans Pacific Partnership on Australian law.
Consistent with the current regulatory approach, under which the Commission has granted forbearance for retail Internet services, primary ISPs may continue to apply ITMPs to retail Internet services as they consider appropriate, with no requirement for prior Commission approval. This approach remains valid due in part to the large number of existing ISPs. A change in the approach would amount to interference with market forces and would result in inefficient regulation, which is contrary to the Policy Direction.
The current CRTC FAQ says much the same thing:
A retail customer is the end user who purchases access to the Internet. The CRTC does not regulate rates, quality of service issues or business practices of Internet service providers as they relate to retail customers. This is because there is enough competition in the market that retail customers can shop around for service packages.
The view that the Canadian Internet services market is competitive has shaped virtually every recent important CRTC decision on broadband regulation. Given its longstanding view that the market was competitive, the frustration felt by independent ISPs, businesses, and consumers simply didn’t resonate with the commission. That led to a decade of decisions on TPIA (the cable access for independent ISPs) that rendered the market practically unusable for independent ISPs. It led to years of delay on speed matching, which effectively left independent ISPs with slower, uncompetitive speeds to offer potential customers. It led to the decision to block ADSL-CO, which would have allowed independent ISPs to co-locate closer to the residential customers. It led to the net neutrality decision, which encouraged ISPs to use “economic ITMPs” such as usage based billing without restriction. Finally, it led to the approval of wholesale usage based billing, which came within days of implementation before the public outcry ground it to a halt.
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers 
Government Seeks To Exempt Political Parties From Privacy Laws Even As CRTC Reports They Are Leading Source of Spam Complaints 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 236: Robert Diab on the Return of Lawful Access 
Government Remains Silent as it Eviscerates Political Party Privacy in Canada By Fast Tracking Bill C-4
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
