Search Results for "c-11" : 409

International Publishers Threaten Canada With WTO Complaint Over Bill -11

An international publishing organization has escalated the rhetoric over Bill C-11 by making veiled threats about a WTO complaint against Canada if the bill’s fair dealing provision remains unchanged. The signatories claim “there is a real possibility that a WTO complaint will be brought against Canada” if the fair dealing […]

April 25, 2012 — 4 comments — News

Other People’s Money: Why AUCC Signed the Most Expensive Copyright Insurance Policy in Cdn History

Car rental companies are infamous for encouraging customers to sign up for expensive liability insurance policies. Since many renters already have coverage from their own automotive insurance policies or can rely upon insurance coverage provided by their credit card issuer, the decision whether to sign up for a costly additional policy frequently depends upon who is paying the bill. If the individual is on the hook, they will often decline coverage and rely on their existing policies. If someone else is paying, it becomes easier to justify signing up for the additional coverage.

Last week, the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada, which represents dozens of Canada’s leading universities, signed up for one of the most expensive copyright insurance policies in Canadian history. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the policy comes in the form of a controversial model copyright licensing agreement with Access Copyright, a copyright collective that licenses copying and distribution of copyrighted works such as books, journals, and other texts. Should AUCC members sign the agreement – it falls to each individual university to decide whether to do so – they will pay $26 per full time student per year for the right to copy works from the Access Copyright repertoire.

April 24, 2012 — 25 comments — Columns

Other People’s Money: Why AUCC Signed the Most Expensive Copyright Insurance Policy in Cdn History

Appeared in the Toronto Star on April 22, 2012 as The most expensive copyright insurance policy in Canadian history Car rental companies are infamous for encouraging customers to sign up for expensive liability insurance policies. Since many renters already have coverage from their own automotive insurance policies or can rely […]

April 24, 2012 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

Australia High Court Sides With ISP in Landmark Copyright Case

The Australian High Court has issued a landmark ruling that firmly sides with Internet providers over their liability and responsibility for alleged infringement on their networks. The closely watched case involves a lawsuit by the movie industry which claimed that iiNet, an Australian ISP, was liable for authorizing infringement by its subscribers. The unanimous court rejected the movie industry claims, finding that the ISP had no technical or contractual power to act.

April 20, 2012 — 4 comments — News

CRTC Stands By New Disclosure Requirement on Software Installs Over Objections From ESAC, RIM

The CRTC has finalized its anti-spam regulations, retaining some notable new disclosure requirements for some software installations. The requirements were opposed by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada and Research in Motion, who both asked for the requirements to be either dropped or significantly changed. The regulation requires:

A computer program’s material elements that perform one or more of the functions listed in subsection 10(5) of the Act must be brought to the attention of the person from whom consent is being sought separately from any other information provided in a request for consent and the person seeking consent must obtain an acknowledgement in writing from the person from whom consent is being sought that they understand and agree that the program performs the specified functions.

The functions listed in 10(5) of the Act are:

(a) collecting personal information stored on the computer system;
(b) interfering with the owner’s or an authorized user’s control of the computer system;
(c) changing or interfering with settings, preferences or commands already installed or stored on the computer system without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;
(d) changing or interfering with data that is stored on the computer system in a manner that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with lawful access to or use of that data by the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;
(e) causing the computer system to communicate with another computer system, or other device, without the authorization of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;
(f) installing a computer program that may be activated by a third party without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system; and
(g) performing any other function specified in the regulations.

While this is obviously designed first and foremost at spyware, it targets many other possibilities including the infamous Sony rootkit case and other attempts by software or app developers to unexpectedly collect personal information or interfere with a user’s computer. It could also have an impact on some digital rights management systems, raising interesting questions about the interaction between these requirements and the digital lock rules in Bill C-11.

March 29, 2012 — 16 comments — News