Michael Geist

Latest Posts

The Case For Cancelling Canada’s Simultaneous Substitution Rules

The government’s promise to implement a “pick-and-pay” television model that would allow consumers to subscribe to individual channels from cable and satellite providers garnered significant attention this fall. The approach was promoted as a pro-consumer reform that better reflects expectations that the public controls when, where, and on what device they watch broadcast programming.

Consistent with the government’s policy commitment, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will soon report on the regulatory implications of such a reform. Changing cable packages may only be the beginning, however, as CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais has stated that the regulator needs to “develop a regulatory framework that will be flexible enough to be adapted to the new technological reality.”

My weekly technology law column (homepage version, Toronto Star version) notes the unbundling of television packages represents the broadcast distribution side of the changing environment, but the flip side of the coin involves the need for changes to Canadian broadcast policy. If Industry Minister James Moore and the CRTC are prepared to shake up the way Canadians access television, they should also consider changing longstanding and increasingly outdated broadcast rules, starting with the gradual elimination of “simultaneous substitution” policies.

December 17, 2013 — 6 comments — Columns

What Will Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Mean for Users and Businesses?

Long before sites such as Youtube and Twitter were even created, the Canadian government established a national task force to examine concerns associated with spam and spyware. The task force completed its work in May 2005, unanimously recommending that the government introduce anti-spam legislation (I was a member of the task force). Four years later, then-Industry Minister Tony Clement tabled an anti-spam law, which underwent extensive committee review before receiving royal assent in December 2010.

My technology law column last week (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while most expected the government to quickly bring the new law into force, the regulation-making process became bogged down by an intense lobbying effort designed to sow fear, doubt, and uncertainty about the legislation. Business groups relied upon implausible scenarios to argue that Canada would be placed at an economic disadvantage, despite the fact that government officials were able to identify over 100 other countries that have similar anti-spam regimes. The lobbying was a partial success, however, as the regulations went through two drafts and three more years of delay.

Almost a decade after Canada started down the path toward anti-spam legislation, Industry Minister James Moore announced earlier this month that the regulations are now final and the law will begin to take effect next year. There will be still yet more implementation delays – the anti-spam rules start on July 1, 2014, safeguards on software installations begin on January 15, 2015, and a private right of action that facilitates lawsuits to combat spam will be delayed until July 1, 2017 – but it appears that Canada will finally get an operational anti-spam law.

December 16, 2013 — 6 comments — Columns

Proposed U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pledges More Pressure on Intellectual Property

During the years of debate over Canadian copyright reform, I frequently argued that caving to U.S. demands on issues such as digital locks would not relieve the pressure but rather invite more of the same. While Canada has done much of what the U.S. has asked – digital locks, anti-counterfeiting […]

December 12, 2013 — 7 comments — News

Toronto and UWO Confirm the Obvious: Access Copyright Licence Provides Little Value for Education

The University of Toronto and the University of Western Ontario, the two Ontario universities that were quick to sign a copyright collective licence with Access Copyright before the conclusion of Bill C-11 and the Supreme Court of Canada’s fair dealing decisions, have announced that starting next year they will no longer operate under a licence from the copyright collective. The moves come after many other prominent Canadian universities operated without an Access Copyright licence, relying instead the millions of dollars being spent on site licences, open access materials, fair dealing, and transactional licensing for specific works that are otherwise unavailable or whose use would not constitute fair dealing.

The fair dealing aspect of the strategy has attracted considerable criticism from Access Copyright and its allies, who implausibly argue that despite multiple Supreme Court of Canada decisions and an expansion of fair dealing by the Canadian government, that there is still much uncertainty about its application. The reality is that a fair dealing consensus has emerged in Canada within the education community that is relatively conservative in scope. For example, the Canadian guidelines speak to the use of 10 percent of a work as fair dealing. By comparison, a recent settlement in Israel between universities and a major publisher identifies 20 percent of a work as fair.

While Access Copyright argued immediately after its release that the 2012 Supreme Court decision left “copyright licensing in the education sector alive and well”, it was obvious that this was just not the case. In fact, Access Copyright warned the Supreme Court that:

December 11, 2013 — 4 comments — News

The Privacy Threats in Bill C-13, Part Two: The Low Threshold for Metadata

My first post on the privacy threats in Bill C-13 focused on the voluntary disclosure of personal information and the complete civil and criminal immunity granted to intermediaries such as ISPs and telecom companies that provide such disclosures. This post focuses on the low threshold the bill establishes for a new “transmission data” warrant and explains why this represents a serious privacy risk.

The bill defines transmission data as data that:

(a) relates to the telecommunication functions of dialling, routing, addressing or signalling;
(b) is transmitted to identify, activate or configure a device, including a computer program as defined in subsection 342.1(2), in order to establish or maintain access to a telecommunication service for the purpose of enabling a communication, or is generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication and identifies or purports â€¨to identify the type, direction, date, time, duration, size, origin, destination or termination of the communication;
(c) does not reveal the substance, meaning or purpose of the communication.

The bill creates a new warrant that allows a judge to order the disclosure of transmission data where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, the identification of a device or person involved in the transmission will assist in an investigation, or will help identify a person. The government relies on the fact that this is a warrant with court oversight to support the claim that Canadians should not be concerned by this provision. Yet the reality is that there is reason for concern as the implications of treating metadata as having a low privacy value is enormously troubling.

December 11, 2013 — 4 comments — News