Arrrrrghh you a pirate? It’s all bad news from here.
This was a bad month to be an internet pirate in Canada
Topic The Courts
You can go ahead and send those text messages to your drug dealer (maybe)
Well that’s good news I guess? Two very important cases came out of the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. And while technically they are not internet law cases, and I write a blog about internet law, they are huge privacy cases. And I teach privacy! So I guess I should read them and write about them.
California Court to Supreme Court of Canada: F*** You (I’m paraphrasing)
In July of 2014, I wrote a post that was entitled This hugely important Google case will be going on for a while…. Well it’s more than 3 years later, and it’s still going on. I am psychic!
Yahoo! My job is in jeopardy, part deux
/ checks date of last blog post.
Oooh boy.
Facebook won’t like this and my job is in jeopardy – thanks, Supreme Court!
Mmm, that’s good irony
Oh Supreme Court, you’ve gone and done it now.
Notices! Online Pics! YouTube! It’s the Canadian internet law jurisprudence month in review
mmm, dusty
The month of May 2017 will go down in the annals of internet law history for having not one, not two, but five (three, sir!) three cases of note about internet law in Canada. Well, maybe not “of note”, but noteworthy. Oh crap, I just looked and one of the cases is actually from April. Well this is starting poorly.
Continue reading
Forget the right to be forgotten in Canada (for now)
There was a huge, huge, huge (no really it was huge) internet law case that came out of the Federal Court about a month ago. “If it was so huge, why are you only writing about it now?” you are asking me. Shut up is why.
Keyword searches and colleges and trademarks, oh my!
Do I want to dive into the world of trademarks and have to explain to you how the law of trademarks works? Fuck and no. I hate trademarks with the fire of a thousand suns; that’s almost as much as I hate patents. I am some kind of IP lawyer! But we’ve got an important internet law case out of the BC Court of Appeals that is about trademarks, so I guess I have no choice. Are we having fun yet?
Illegal set-top boxes – a multimedia extravaganza post
Audio! Words! Internet cat fights! This post has it all.
Dog poo + Facebook = $65,000
That may be the best headline I’ve ever written. It should technically be “Dog poo + pedophilia + Facebook = $65,000”, but I was scared of what kind of click bait that would be. Thank you, B.C. Supreme Court!
Twitter! Revenge porn! It’s the Jurisprudence Week in Review
We’ve had two important internet law cases coming out of Ontario over the last week or so. I have spent the last couple of days trying to figure out which one to write about. After much soul-searching drinking, I’ve decided to write about both. This is probably a mistake.
The Supreme Court does some technology things
“Broadcast-incidental copies” does not sound like a major jumping off point for a huge case about copyright and technology, but apparently it is. And now I have to figure out what the hell it means, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in CBC v. SODRAC from a couple of weeks ago. Goddammit.
Allen
Mendelsohn
is me.
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