Last Thursday, a huge decision came down from the Federal Court of Canada in the case of Voltage Pictures v. John Doe and Jane Doe. No, seriously, this is big. 80 Google News results! When was the last time a Federal Court decision even made the news? Does the decision mean the end of Canadian illegal downloading as we know it? Maybe! Maybe not! Well that’s clear as mud. Let’s try and sort this all out.
Back in March of this year we wrote “isoHunt is toast“. We were speaking figuratively at the time. Well now we can say it literally – isoHunt is toast. Well, not literally in the sense of the delicious breakfast food, but in the sense that it is over, done, kaput, closed forever. Off to the great website resting place in the sky, where it will party with AltaVista and GeoCities. We haz a sad, but we knew this was coming.
Did you know today was World Intellectual Property Day? It’s ok, neither did I until a few hours ago. And it is ostensibly my job! We should get a cake or something. Anyway, I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about (ramble on about) Intellectual Property (IP) in general and why it’s important, while telling you how I regularly violate IP law online. Whoops.
On Friday, our old friends in the Conservative Government introduced Bill C-56 in the House of Commons. People are writing that the Bill will introduce the dreaded ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement, to Canada. It will not, at least in the most important way for us internet law folks. Lemme explain.
Another week, another notice from another ISP forwarded to your intrepid blogger for his usual insightful analysis snark. But this one’s even more fun, because it’s already found its way into the courts this week. Let’s dive in to the tale of a third-rate Hollywood movie company intent on suing everyone, everyone’s favourite Canadian ISP TekSavvy, and my secret spy friend, WHO’S TOTALLY INNOCENT. I want to make that clear.
Tell us something we don’t know, Mendelsohn! OK OK, we all know illegal downloading rulez in Canada. But as of now, it seems like the copyright owners are getting serious about fighting online piracy in Canada. Do you think that they won’t come after you if you just downloaded one little TV program? Well, I’ve got a real surprise for you.
You could be seeing this less often now
Did you know that you woke up this morning to a brand new copyright regime in this country? Of course you didn’t, because copyright is boring. Not so! You can now do many things that you were probably doing before anyway, but now are legal! Let’s do a quick rundown of some of things you may find important.
Well hello there. We’ve come to I guess what would be part 3 of my coverage of the pentalogy of Supreme Court cases on copyright. It will most likely be the final post, as the other two cases deal with non-internet stuff (education and movies, yawn) so really, who gives a crap? But Rogers v. SOCAN is chock full of plump internet juiciness, so let’s dive in!
And we’re back with Part Something in our coverage of the Copyright Pentalogy. Last time we took a look at what I called the most “internet-y” of the cases, SOCAN v. Bell. Today let’s take a look at maybe the second most “internet-y” case, Rogers v. SOCAN. Man, I sense a SOCAN trend. HOLD THE PHONE. I just read the case, and decided we’re going to look at ESA v. SOCAN instead. SOCAN trend indeed. Anyway, let me explain the change of heart.
So you may remember back in December I wrote about the five copyright cases that were being heard in the Supreme Court. Well probably you don’t remember. ANYWAY, the decisions in the five cases (the “Copyright Pentalogy”) came down last week. And what do you know, they were all pretty much a big win for consumers, and for common sense. Yay, Supreme Court!
It’s really fucking hot, and I’ve got summertime to enjoy, so I have no desire right now to read all five cases. So I’ll be covering the cases (some of them?) over the next few weeks. If you just can’t wait, and you want to know about all five right now, go read Geist or Sookman. I’m sure they each have a team of students who read the cases for them. Me, I’m just one man. So let’s dig into one of the two most “internet-y” of the cases, SOCAN v. Bell, and see what rights for consumers have been affirmed by our esteemed judges.
So with all the media whoring over the last couple of weeks, I have neglected to tell you all sorts of interesting stuff. You may have heard that Bill C-11 cruised through the Senate and received Royal Assent. Ugh. When it actually comes into force I’ll write about it again. Oh, and here’s a very interesting article about C-11’s effects on isoHunt.com, with juicy quotes from some internet lawyer guy.
But what I missed that I really wanted to write about was a very interesting and important case that came out of the Federal Court of Canada, that is a real help for bloggers and other online journalists. Better late than never. Let’s take a close look at Warman v. Fournier (PDF), which allows for some significant copying of content on the internet. Yippee!
Here’s my latest for The Montreal Gazette’s Legal Matters. Not a bad little piece about ownership of videos you post online, in light of the Pauline Marois ad business from last week. I talked out of my ass a little bit, but hey, that’s what lawyers do.
I am a lawyer specializing in internet law working out of Montreal, though sometimes I do it in front of the U.S. Capitol. That should tell you what you need to know about internet law in Canada. I also warp young legal minds at the Faculty of Law at McGill.
More about me