Canadian digital law and policy in 2024 featured the long-delayed online harms bill, controversial implementation of streaming and online news legislation, as well as a myriad of notable copyright, AI, and privacy court cases. Government legislation stalled in the House of Commons, but with trade battles over a digital services tax, a competition case against Google, and plans to kick TikTok out of the country, there were no shortage of high profile issues. For this final Law Bytes podcast of 2024, I go solo without a guest to talk about the most significant developments in Canadian digital policy from the past year.
Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP
Copyright
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 222: Robert Diab on Canadian Media’s Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI
Canada’s largest media companies came together recently to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI, the owners of ChatGPT. I wrote about the suit, suggesting that the primary motivation behind the suit was likely the hope to kickstart settlement discussions with the hope of a licence. Robert Diab, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University, raised similar thoughts in his own piece on the lawsuit. Robert joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the case and its implications for copyright and AI in Canada.
Canadian Media Companies Target OpenAI in Copyright Lawsuit But Weak Claims Suggest Settlement the Real Goal
Canada’s largest media companies, including the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Postmedia, CBC, and Canadian Press, came together last week to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI, the owners of ChatGPT. The lawsuit is the first high profile Canadian claim lodged against the enormously popular AI service, though there have been similar suits filed elsewhere, notably including a New York Times lawsuit launched last year. While the lawsuit itself isn’t a huge surprise, the relatively weak, narrow scope of the claims discussed below are. Unlike comparable lawsuits, the Canadian media companies claim is largely limited to data scraping, which may be the weakest copyright claim. Moreover, the companies say they have no actual knowledge of when, where, or how their data was accessed, an acknowledgement that doesn’t inspire confidence when there is evidence available if you know where to look.
So why file this lawsuit? The claim is sprinkled with the most obvious reason: the Canadian media companies want a settlement that involves OpenAI paying licence fees for the inclusion of their content in its large language models and the lawsuit is designed to kickstart negotiations. The companies aren’t hiding the ball as there are repeated references along the lines of “at all times, Open AI was and is well aware of its obligations to obtain a valid licence to use the Works. It has already entered into licensing agreements with several content creators, including other news media organizations.” The takeaway is that Canadian media companies want to licence their stuff too, much like the licensing agreements with global media companies such as News Corp, Financial Times, Hearst, Axel Springer, Le Monde, and the Associated Press.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 221: Inside My Canadian Heritage Committee Appearance on Freedom of Expression
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has for the past month been conducting a study on protecting freedom of expression. The counters of the study aren’t entirely clear. In fact, after I was invited to appear, I asked for some sense of what the committee was looking to address. There wasn’t much detail, which has really left it open for witnesses to cover whatever issues they like. I chose to focus my time on two issues: the expression implications of Canadian digital policy and the chilling effect of antisemitism. The two issues have really dominated my attention in recent months. Digital policy – including Bills C-11, C-18, C-63, and S-210 for years now and the antisemitism issues an enormous concern post October 7, 2023.
This week’s Law Bytes podcast takes the listener into the hearing room and the wide range of questions from Liberal, Conservative, and Bloc MPs my opening statement sparked.
How the Online Streaming Act Misdiagnosed Canada’s Broadcasting Woes
Nearly one year ago, I made my way from my home in Ottawa across the river to the Gatineau hearing room used by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to participate in its inaugural proceeding on implementing the Online Streaming Act, better known as Bill C-11. I had regularly appeared as a witness at House of Commons and Senate committees, but this was my first time participating in a hearing before Canada’s broadcasting regulator. I came with a simple message: while the roster of witnesses was filled with cultural lobby groups and broadcasters asking for their share of the bill’s anticipated pot of gold, the perspective of consumers and the public interest needed to be heard.
My opening statement emphasized prioritizing public over private interests, which, I argued, meant putting Canadians at the centre of their communications system, as one CRTC chair once characterized it. I did not anticipate receiving a warm reception, but I was still taken aback by the frostiness toward the notion that consumers and the public interest were important considerations. Instead, commissioners pointed to the need to step in where broadcasters or content creators were struggling to succeed in the market.
Recent Posts
Government Remains Silent as it Eviscerates Political Party Privacy in Canada By Fast Tracking Bill C-4 
Quebec’s Streaming Regulation Bill 109: Unconstitutional, Unnecessary, and Unworkable 
Why the Government’s Plan for Warrantless Access to Internet Subscriber Information Will Lead to Millions of Disclosure Demands Each Year 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 235: Teresa Scassa on the Alberta Clearview AI Ruling That Could Have a Big Impact on Privacy and Generative AI 
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill
