The NY Times reports on the fee-for-carriage fight brewing in the U.S. (where carriage is optional and fees are negotiating). Denis McGrath highlights some of the key differences between the U.S. and Canada on this issue.
News
The Mad Hatter Calls Out Sookman
The Mad Hatter has a detailed post identifying a series of inaccuracies and misleading statements in a new post by CRIA lobbyist Barry Sookman on Canada and P2P. Sookman has now heavily edited the post, though many of the same claims can be found in other documents.
Kenyan Anti-Counterfeiting Law To Face Constitutional Challenge
Health Action International Africa is challenging the constitutionality of a new Kenyan anti-counterfeiting law. The group argues that the law violates the right to health since it confuses generics with fake medicines and could lead to a health crisis.
U.S. Court Rules Against isoHunt For Inducing Copyright Infringement
A U.S. federal court in California has issued a summary judgment against Canadian-based isoHunt (and its owner Gary Fung), ruling that the site violates U.S. copyright law by inducing copyright infringement. The judge ruled that the isoHunt case is little different from other U.S. cases such as Napster and Grokster, […]
Canada and The WIPO Treaties: Flexibility Was Always Key
Yesterday I blogged about the origins of the WIPO Internet treaty, challenging Mihály Ficsor's claims that the treaty requires a ban on the distribution and manufacture of circumvention devices. Coincidentally, I recently received long overdue documents under the Access to Information Act that highlight the Canadian position during the negotiations of those treaties. As the Canadian delegation prepared to go to Geneva for the final round of negotiation, then Deputy Minister Kevin Lynch (later Clerk of the Privy Council under Prime Minister Harper) provided then Industry Minister John Manley with a memorandum approving the Canadian instructions (the delegation was led by Danielle Bouvet, then with Industry Canada).
Three issues stand out from the document. The first has to do with the hesitation with the treaty itself. The memo acknowledges "in certain areas, the proposed treaty language has not been the subject of adequte debate within Canada – or indeed internationally." Perhaps arising from these concerns, the memo concludes by noting "the delegation will not have full powers to sign a treaty."
Second, the position of the Canadian government was to support provisions that would not result in major changes to domestic law or were sufficiently flexible in implementation. In particular, the memo states that "Canada will also support provisions that constitute minor changes to domestic policy, or which provide flexiblity to adopt measures compatible with Canadian policy." The delegation instructions were therefore limited to provisions consistent with Canadian law (which the WIPO Internet treaties were not) or were flexible in implementation.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
