Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the Federal Court had issued a major decision on the relationship between fair dealing and digital locks, concluding that copyright’s anti-circumvention rules do not trump user rights (podcast on the case here). That decision, Blacklock’s Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, was a big win for user rights because, for the first time, a court ruled that Canada’s anti-circumvention rules (aka digital lock rules) were subject to fair dealing. Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that judgment, ruling that the declarations in the lower court decision should never have been issued in the first place because they lacked “practical utility.” In basic terms, the case was “moot” since Blacklock’s had tried to withdraw the lawsuit and did not require a ruling. But while rights holders seem ready to celebrate, the reality is that the new ruling does not say the Federal Court was wrong on any of the substantive copyright questions.
Search Results for "Law Bytes" : 862
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds
TIFF Removes October 7th Documentary Film From Schedule Citing Implausible Copyright Clearance Concerns From Hamas Terror Footage
The Toronto International Film Festival has removed from its 2025 schedule a documentary film by Canadian filmmaker Barry Avrich that tells the story of Noam Tibon’s mission to save his family during the October 7th attacks by Hamas in Israel. The film is based on the excellent book by Amir Tibon, the Gates of Gaza, which recounts both the rescue effort and the longstanding fraught relationship between Israel and Gaza. According to Deadline, the film, titled The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, was scheduled to be included in the program announced last week. But TIFF asked that the source of Hamas body-cam footage included in the film be identified and to provide copyright clearances for the video. You read that correctly: TIFF wanted the filmmakers to obtain copyright licences from Hamas terrorists.
New Era and New Risks: Meta’s Content Moderation Reforms and Freedom of Expression Online
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg yesterday announced significant new changes to the company’s content moderation policies. The five-minute video is worth watching in its entirety, as it demonstrates the shifting political sands that seemingly pressured even the world’s largest social media company to pay heed. Zuckerberg said the company’s reliance on third-party fact checkers had resulted in too much censorship and vowed to return to an emphasis on freedom of expression. That means the fact checkers are gone, replaced by the Twitter (X) model of community notes. Moreover, the company is moving its content moderation team from California to Texas (a nod to claims the California-based teams were biased), increasing the amount of political content in user feeds, and pledging to work with the Trump administration to combat content regulation elsewhere, including in Europe and South America.
The Year of Disbelief: The Relentless Rise of Antisemitism in Canada
I’ve posted several year-in-reviews of Canadian digital policy (blogs, podcasts, Substacks), but the most important story this year for me and the Jewish community was the relentless rise of antisemitism in Canada. Over the course of the year, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to emphasize the chilling effect of antisemitism, wrote op-eds in the Globe and Mail (2), National Post, and the Hub, and posted countless pieces on antisemitism in our streets and campuses. There were posts on the need for academic institutions to adhere to the principle of institutional neutrality, support for the government’s guide on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, social media challenges, and even a podcast on Wikipedia’s antisemitism problem. Canada is not alone in dealing with a dramatic rise in antisemitism, but when the attacks hit your synagogue, school, or community centre and it is your leaders that fail to respond, it hits close to home.
Canadian Government to Ban TikTok (the Company not the App)
The Canadian government has just announced the conclusion of its national security review of TikTok and arrived at a curious conclusion: it plans to ban the company from operating in Canada but the app will remain available here. I wrote earlier this year about the need for better laws to counter the risks associated with TikTok, rather than banning the app altogether. That post came in response to U.S. legislation that proposed to ban the app, but which is now in doubt given the results of yesterday’s U.S. Presidential election. There may well be good reasons to ban the app if it poses security and privacy risks that differ from those of other platforms, but banning the company rather than the app may actually make matters worse since the risks associated with the app will remain but the ability to hold the company accountable will be weakened.
Recent Posts
Going Through the Motions: How Parliament Is Shutting Down Study and Debate on Political Party Privacy 
Why The Senate Got Antisemitism Only Half-Right 
The Government Doubles Down on News Sector Support: Fiscal Update Opens the Door to Tens of Millions in Tax Credits for Bell, Rogers and Corus 
The Illusion of Protection: Why Canada’s Growing Push to Ban Social Media for Kids Won’t Work 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 266: Justin Safayeni on the Ontario Government’s Overnight Evisceration of Access to Information
