I gave a speech earlier today at the Law Society Special Lectures on Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age. My talk was entitled, “Is There a Gap in Intellectual Property Law?” My slides are shown below.
Earlier this week, in commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canadahosted a public education forum to examine the ongoing search for justice for victims through Remembrance, Reconciliation and Restitution. I spoke on the subject of working through copyright issues in making historical/archive materials available. My slides are below.
This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin hearing an appeal from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the so called “value for signal” case. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, ruled that the Broadcasting Act empowers the CRTC to establish a regime to enable private local television stations to choose to negotiate with broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in exchange for the distribution of the programming services broadcast by those local television stations.
Last week, Robert Levine, author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, and Brett Danaher, the author of a study on the effect of France’s HADOPI graduated response law, participated in several events in Toronto. This included talks by Robert Levine at the Economic Club, at Osoode Hall Law School, and at Canadian Music Week and by Brett Danaher at Osgoode Hall law School and Canadian Music Week. A summary of their talks at Osgoode Hall law School is available here. Their talks at CMW can be seen below.
The following is a reply to William Patry’s lengthy response to my blog of March 16. Both the blog and Mr. Patry’s response may be found here. Given the length of my reply, for ease of reading, I am posting my reply here and inserting a cross-reference to this page in the comments section of the March 16 blog.
I have the greatest respect for your knowledge and experience, and for your contributions to the copyright debate, both through your texts and through your lively blog. However, I sense a significant internal contradiction in your comment to my blogs that I would like to explore.
Early this week, I opened a lengthy response in Howard Knopf’s blog to my recent post in this blog. Never one to mince his words, Mr. Knopf suggests with sound and fury that I have sought to “mislead Parliament” by posting on the issue of the educational fair dealing provision. Although the House of Commons Committee on Copyright has completed its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-11 without touching this provision, there are certain statements in Mr. Knopf’s blog that need to be addressed.
On March 5, 2012 the CRTC finalized its set of regulations for Canada’s new anti-spam bill, CASL. These regulations were revised following extensive consultations held separately by the CRTC and Industry Canada on previously published regulations. These consultations resulted in extensive recommendations for changes by more than 57 organisations.
Industry Canada is still considering what changes to make to its draft regulations. Unlike the CRTC, it intends to publish a new set of draft regulations, possibly next month, for comment before finalizing them. The bill will not be proclaimed into force until the Industry Canada regulations are finalized and the public is given some time to implement the processes needed to comply.
The Special Legislative Committee reviewing Bill C-11 is now finished its work. After voting on amendments to the Bill, the Committee voted to report the Bill back to the House of Commons for Third Reading. It is expected to be passed by Parliament and then sent to the Senate before becoming law.
For more information about the Copyright Modernization Act or Bill C-11 or copyright reform, see Change and the Copyright Modernization Act.