Yesterday, the UK Government released a number of proposals to modernise the UK’s intellectual property laws. One of the reports is dedicated to outlining The UK IP Crime Strategy. The rational for the strategy is clear: counterfeiting and piracy are of concern both as a barrier to growth and because of the wider ills to which they have been linked, which include dangerous goods, online fraud and serious organised crime.
Industry Canada has launched a web site to inform Canadians about Canada’s new anti-spam legislation. The site has some useful information about the law which is simply referred to as “Canada’s new anti-spam law”, as the law has no short name. The information at the site includes “key facts”, an “FAQ”, information about the new Spam Reporting Centre, and how the law will be enforced and administered. A link to the law is also at the site.
The Canadian Anti-SPAM law (CASL or FISA) contemplated that regulations would need to be promulgated before the Act is proclaimed into force. CASL contemplated two sets of regulations: one from Industry Canada and the other from the CRTC. The CRTC published draft regulations for comment purposes on June 30, 2011. The Commission will accept comments from interested persons that it receives on or before September 7, 2011, a date extended by the CRTC from the original date of 29 August 2011.
The CRTC draft regulations are as follows:
The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Government of Canada recently published reports on the trade practices of Canada. Each report contains a short summary of the provisions of Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act.
When Bill C-32 was tabled in the House of Commons the Government published Facts Sheets, FAQs, and a Backgrounder that summarized the Bill’s amendments. The Bill’s objectives were also described in its Preamble. The Government described the Bill succinctly for the WTO as follows:
Is a work published worldwide for copyright purposes when it is posted on a publically available internet web site? That issue was just canvassed by a US District Court in Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley2011WL 2223422 (S.D.Fla. Jun. 7, 2011). The Court ruled that making a music file available on a website in Australia was an act tantamount to global and simultaneous publication of the work which brought the work within the definition of a “United States work” under § 101(1)(C) of the US Copyright Act. The effect of the holding was that the copyright infringement suit brought in the US was dismissed for failure to meet that legislation’s registration requirement for a “United States work”.
Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression released a controversial report in which he stated he was
“alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.”