Latest Posts

Ontario Court Sets Standard For Disclosing Anonymous Posters

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued its appellate decision on whether the owners of the Free Dominion website can be ordered to disclose the identities of several anonymous posters accused of defamation. The original order covered email and IP addresses.  On appeal, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC intervened to argue that the court should take free speech and privacy rights into consideration when assessing whether an order is appropriate.

Relying heavily on the Sony BMG v. Doe case (the file sharing lawsuit that CRIA now denies exists), the court notes that it "illustrates that a court must have regard to the privacy interests of anonymous users of the Internet before granting a Norwich Phramacal order, even where the issue involved pertains to property rights and does not engage the interest of freedom of expression." 

Read more ›

May 4, 2010 5 comments News

The James Moore Hockey Tweet

As many will have heard, over the weekend Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore posted a tweet saying the Vancouver Canucks are Canada's team in the NHL playoffs.  Denis McGrath wrote a response titled Tweets Have Consequences, which I retweeted on Sunday night.  By Monday, the story took off, with national […]

Read more ›

May 4, 2010 2 comments News

Assessing ACTA from an Australian Perspective

Kim Weatherall has posted a detailed section-by-section analysis of ACTA and its potential impact on Australian law.

Read more ›

May 4, 2010 Comments are Disabled News

Dutch Report: File Sharers Biggest Customers

Ars Technica reports on a new Dutch study that finds that file sharers are the content industry's "largest customers."

Read more ›

May 4, 2010 Comments are Disabled News

ACTA: Why You Should Still Care

This post appears as a guest column on GigaOm today:

After years of secrecy, the eighth round of talks aimed at drafting an international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) recently concluded in New Zealand – and in the face of public pressure, a version of the text was subsequently made available to the public. The ACTA is neither a trade agreement nor one focused primarily on counterfeiting, but a copyright deal featuring provisions on Internet service provider and Internet company liability, DMCA-style notice and takedown requirements, legal protection for digital locks, and requirements for statutory damages that could result in millions in liability for non-commercial infringement – even heightened searches at border crossings.

Ever since the ACTA partners – among them the U.S., E.U., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco and Singapore – announced negotiations plans in October 2007, ACTA has been dogged by controversy over a near-total lack of transparency. Early talks were held in secret locations with each participating country offering virtually identical, cryptic press releases that did little more than fuel public concern. Now that the ACTA text is public, some might wonder whether there’s still cause for concern. Indeed, given widespread support for measures that target genuine commercial counterfeiting, some might believe it’s time to actively support ACTA.

It’s not – at least not this version.

Read more ›

May 3, 2010 11 comments Columns