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.
“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.
My two loyal readers may remember the case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc. OK, even I admit I had trouble remembering it, since I wrote about it almost a year ago and a year is forever in internet time. But it sounded vaguely familiar, so I Googled myself (ha!). And what I found was that I was quite prescient, for the title of that post was “This hugely important Google case will be going on for a while…” Well I got that right! I wrote in that post that “I still think the Court of Appeal will overturn the order in the end”. Well about 10 days ago the BC Court of Appeal decision came down and I got that… less right.
On Monday this week the U.S. Supreme Court came down with their decision in the case of Elonis v. United States, which is all about a terrible rap lyricist threatening to kill or hurt a bunch of people on Facebook. Let’s take a look at the decision and see if it has any implications for Canada (spoiler alert – it does not! It’s U.S. law!).
Net neutrality is VERY important dammit. For the internet legal types (hello!) it’s always one of the most important topics of discussion around the ol’ water cooler. So when a communications behemoth like Bell decides to appeal a big neutrality decision, it should be a huge story. Like earlier this week, when it was widely reported that Bell Mobility filed some appeal documents in the Federal Court of Canada. But there are some real misconceptions about all this that yours truly is here to clear up in my usual irascible way.
Within 14 days of the date of this judgment, Google Inc. is to cease indexing or referencing in search results on its internet search engines the websites contained in Schedule A…
– Supreme Court of British Columbia
I would not blame you if you thought that order above was from the Google Right to be Forgotten case. It is not. It is from Canada. And it will be seriously precedent-setting. Well, if the appeals don’t gut it first. We’re a long way from this being over, but we’ve had two important decisions so far, the most recent one last week, so I guess I better chronicle them so when we end up in the Supreme Court of Canada in three years, I can just refer back to this post because I’m lazy. Let’s dive in.
The advancement of internet legal principles is the only good thing to result from child pornography #RvSpencer
– Me, on Twitter, last Friday as I read the case
Sure, quoting yourself from Twitter is pretty dumb. And tragically, my #RvSpencer hashtag never took off. But the point still stands. Illegal activities like child pornography tend to be lightning rods for internet privacy, and the only way we can get landmark internet law cases like last Friday’s R v. Spencer case from the Supreme Court of Canada. And the Court even found a way to keep the child pornography evidence intact while guaranteeing some internet privacy rights. Win-win!
Sometimes we forget things. Sometimes, we’d like to forget things. You know, like that time I you had a few too many and got naked on the bar and everyone had their iPhones pointed at me you and well, I’ve said too much already. I’d You’d like to forget that incident, but the internet never forgets. And Google never forgets. But thanks to a ruling from a couple of weeks ago that can only be described as “landmark” from the top court in the EU, the Court of Justice, Google kind of has to. Let’s dive in.
I rarely write about U.S. internet legal developments around here. But sometimes, the facts of a U.S. case are just too interesting to ignore. Once such recent case caught my eye. If you’ve read the headline of this post, you know what I mean. And there is a Canadian connection to the facts, so that’s something. Continue reading
I had the pleasure of sitting down recently with the fine folks from the McGill Law Journal, who have an amazing podcast series, with lots of law learnin’ ‘n stuff. For some reason they thought I would be a good guest. Big mistake. The title of the podcast is “Seeking Jane Doe: The Voltage Decision”, and obviously, it’s about the Voltage decision. Here is the description:
Voltage, a US film producer and distributor, is using a controversial legal procedure to go after illegal downloading. We talk to Allen Mendelsohn, internet law expert, David Fewer, Director of CIPPIC, and Voltage’s lawyer, John Philpott, about how this will impact Canadian Internet users.
You can listen online, or visit the iTunes McGill Law Journal podcast page to get it in iTunes.
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.
The Court of Appeal of Québec and its multiple phallic columns
It has been a very busy couple of weeks for internet law in Canada. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Alberta’s privacy law unconstitutional and essentially junked the whole thing. This week, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-13, the so-called “Cyberbullying legislation”, which some are already calling a bullshit excuse for more of the lawful access crap we had with Bill C-30. That’s some important stuff I’ll write about eventually, I swear. But I want to go back to the heady days of two weeks ago, when the Quebec Court of Appeal made a ruling against eBay that essentially makes my job drafting Terms of Use a complete waste of time. That’ll teach me to charge people hundreds of dollars an hour for it.
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