The Digital Privacy Act was given a quick third reading in the House yesterday and was speedily given royal assent to become law earlier today. This law, which has been in the making since 2007, updates Canada’s comprehensive federal privacy legislation PIPEDA in quite significant ways. I previously summarized salient aspects of the law in my blog posts, Digital Privacy Act: Important work still to be done by the INDU Committee and Cyber threats, information sharing and The Digital Privacy Act.
I gave my annual presentation today to the Toronto computer Lawyers’ Group on “The year in review in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law”. It covered the period from June 2014 to June 2015. The developments included cases from Canada, the U.S. the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries.
The developments were organized into the broad topics of: Online Agreements, Licensing/Technology Contracting, Privacy, Online Liability, Cyber-security and Copyright.
The cases referred to are listed below. My slides can be viewed after the case listing.
Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F. 3d 1171 (9th.Cir. 2014)
This morning, Ryerson University and Deloitte announced a new certification framework based on Privacy by Design principles. Privacy by Design is a set of principles that builds privacy into the design, operation and management of a given system, business process or design specification. It is based on 7 Foundational Principles developed by Dr Ann Cavoukian, Executive Director of Ryerson’s Privacy and Big Data Institute and the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.
Under the Privacy by Design framework, Ryerson will be responsible for certifying organizations that meet the necessary privacy criteria. Organizations must first undergo an assessment by Deloitte, Ryerson’s exclusive assessment arm for the certification framework, against the 7 Foundational Principles.
The Government tabled legislation in Parliament today to implement certain provisions of the budget. The Bill summarizes the following key legislative provisions of interest to readers of this blog as follows:
- amends the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for a published sound recording and a performer’s performance fixed in a published sound recording from 50 years to 70 years after publication; it caps the term at 100 years after the first fixation of, respectively, the sound recording or the performer’s performance in a sound recording;
Last week the government announced an extension to the term of protection for performers and makers of sound recordings, increasing the term from 50 years to 70 years. In doing so, the Government exhibited respect for artists and their music and decided to act before their valuable recordings fell into the public domain.
Michael Geist was quick to criticize the announcement, claiming it could cost Canadian consumers “millions of dollars” and that it would result in fewer works entering the public domain. In support of his claims, Geist referred to several “studies”.
On Wednesday, the government announced an extension of the term of protection for performers and makers of sound recordings, increasing the term from 50 years to 70 years. The announcement was widely applauded by Canadian artists, such as Randy Bachman, Bruce Cockburn, Leonard Cohen, Cowboy Junkies, Jim Cuddy (Blue Rodeo), Kardinal Offishall, Serena Ryder, Tom Cochrane, Gordon Lightfoot, Loreena McKennitt, and Triumph, and by organizations representing artists and makers of sound recordings, including the Canadian Independent Music Association (CIMA), Music Canada, and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA).
Leonard Cohen expressed the sentiments of many artists in saying:
The Canadian Government announced today that it is amending the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection for performers and makers of sound recordings from its current term of 50 years to 70 years. The announcement, which also included a statement that Canada intends to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind and visually impaired, was made as part of the Government’s Budget and is expected to be enacted as part of a budget implementation bill to be tabled in Parliament within the next few days.
The Budget expressed the Government’s intentions as follows:
The Canadian Government announced today that it is making amendments to the Copyright Act to enable Canada to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty and to extend the term of copyright protection for performers and makers of sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. The announcement was made as part of the Government’s Budget and is expected to be enacted as part of a budget implementation bill to be tabled in Parliament within the next few days.
The Budget described the Government’s intentions in relation to the Marrakesh Treaty as follows:
The ‘Safari workaround’ has cost Google millions. In 2012, it paid a civil penalty of US$22.5 million to settle charges brought by the US FTC that Google misrepresented to users of the Safari browser that it would not place tracking cookies or serve targeted advertisements to those users. In 2013 it paid US$17 million to settle US state consumer-based actions brought by State AGs.
You know a defamation case is going to be a good one when it starts like this:
Political debate in the Internet blogosphere can be, and, often is, rude, aggressive, sarcastic, hyperbolic, insulting, caustic and/or vulgar. It is not for the faint of heart. This case is an action in defamation involving political bloggers on the Internet.
The case is Baglow v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 1175. One of the issues in the case was whether the moderator of a message board who does not remove defamatory content is liable as a publisher for defamation purposes.