Michael Geist

Latest Posts

Minister Michael Coteau, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, at the Northern Leaders’ Forum by Premier of Ontario Photography (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/i8qraN

Ontario Government Soft Pedals Netflix & Google Regulation, But Record Speaks For Itself

As CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais anticipated, the Government of Ontario’s call for regulation of online video services attracted considerable attention, including comments from Canadian Heritage Minister Shelly Glover roundly dismissing the possibility. Glover stated:

“We will not allow any moves to impose new regulations and taxes on internet video that would create a Netflix and Youtube Tax.”

Last night, I received an email from a spokesperson for Ontario Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Michael Coteau that tried to soften the call for online video regulation. The spokesperson stated:

“The presentation today provided important elements for CRTC consideration as it undertakes its review. The government is not advocating for any CanCon changes, or that any specific regulations be imposed on new media TV, until more evidence is available.”

I asked for clarification on what “more evidence” means. The spokesperson responded that there will be over 100 presentations at the CRTC hearing and that all need to be heard from before moving forward.

September 9, 2014 — 12 comments — News

Obama in the Backseat: Rally to Save the Internet by Free Press (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/osRvjr

Ontario Government Asks the CRTC To Impose New Regulations and Fees on Internet Giants Such as Netflix and Google

This afternoon, the Ontario government appeared before the CRTC as part of its future of television hearing. The Ontario government issued a clear call for new regulation of so-called new media companies such as Netflix and Google. The government states:

In order to create a more level playing field, the ministry recommends decreasing this regulatory imbalance. The ministry believes the best way to accomplish this is to expand the regulation of new media TV, rather than by lightening the current regulation of traditional TV.

What does the expansion of regulation involve?

September 8, 2014 — 41 comments — News

What is on Television Tonight by Trey Ratcliff (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/t1pU6

The CRTC’s Future of TV Hearing: “There is No Such Thing as Too Much Choice”

Rogers Communications unveiled its plan for streaming more than 1,000 National Hockey League games on the Internet last week. Having invested billions of dollars to obtain the Canadian broadcast and Internet rights to NHL hockey, the cable giant pointed to the future of broadcast by embracing consumer demand for making games available online.

As part of the launch, Rogers Media president Keith Pelley responded to questions about the approach by stating “there’s no such thing as too much choice. Let the consumer decide what they want to watch.” Pelley was speaking about hockey streaming, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes his comments should resonate loudly this week in a broader context as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission opens its much-anticipated public hearing on the future of television in Canada.

The CRTC hearing has already generated thousands of advance comments from major stakeholders and individual Canadians. It has also unleashed considerable angst from established broadcasters, broadcast distributors, and content creators, who fear that the broadcast regulator will overhaul the current system by implementing changes such as mandatory pick-and-pay channel selection for consumers and reforms to longstanding policies such as simultaneous substitution (which allows Canadian broadcasters to substitute Canadian commercials into U.S. licensed programming).

September 8, 2014 — 3 comments — Columns

Vice President Biden Swears in Bruce Heyman as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada by Department of State (U.S. Government Work) https://flic.kr/p/muidu1

Why U.S. Pressure Is Behind the Stalled Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Bill

Last year, the federal government trumpeted anti-counterfeiting legislation as a key priority. The bill raced through the legislative process in the winter and following some minor modifications after committee hearings, seemed set to pass through the House of Commons. Yet after committee approval, the bill suddenly stalled with little movement throughout the spring.

Why did a legislative priority with all-party approval seemingly grind to a halt?

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) suggests that the answer appears to stem from the appointment of Bruce Heyman as the new U.S. ambassador to Canada. During his appointment process, Heyman identified intellectual property issues as a top priority and as part of his first major speech as ambassador, singled out perceived shortcomings in the anti-counterfeiting bill.

September 2, 2014 — 7 comments — Columns

Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh

BC Court Rules on Signing Away Your Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Canadian privacy law has long been reliant on the principle of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The principle is particularly important with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is grounded in a reasonable expectation of privacy in a free and democratic society.

The reasonable expectation of privacy standard provides a useful starting point for analysis, but the danger is that privacy rights can seemingly be lost with little more than a contractual provision indicating that the user has no privacy. Indeed, if privacy rights can disappear based on a sentence in a contract that few take the time to read (much less assess whether they are comfortable with), those rights stand on very shaky ground.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the limits of the reasonable expectation of privacy standard emerged in a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal case involving the search of a courier package that contained illegal drugs. The court rejected claims of an illegal search, concluding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite the fact that he had no commercial relationship with the courier company and had never agreed to, or even viewed, the terms of the contract.

August 27, 2014 — 9 comments — Columns