If it was not clear enough before that there are many problems with CASL, it became evident when Industry Canada released the final regulations and the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (the RIAS). CASL takes an extremely broad “ban all” approach to regulating commercial messages and the installation of computer programs. This structure makes the exceptions particularly important because every CEM sent without consent (and following the prescribed rules) and every computer program installed on any computer (machine or device) without consent (and making the required disclosures) as part of a commercial activity will be illegal. The regulations purport to address some of the major necessarily inadvertent consequences with CASL’s breadth and structure. See, CASL Industry Canada regulations: summary and comments. However, they fall short in many very important respects.
- Subscribe
-
- Computer and Internet Weekly Updates for 2019-06-15 https://t.co/d7zcEqbBWl 2019-06-16
- Dotcom extradition: Copyright breaches could still be criminal conspiracy, Crown says https://t.co/On8Rr6rfXE 2019-06-16
- Canada’s trademark changes mean higher fees, more complexities in filing https://t.co/IDzM1OkNfK 2019-06-16
- Computer and Internet Updates for 2019-06-16 https://t.co/6L0UnzSyKe 2019-06-17
- Vermont Supreme Court Reads Revenge Porn Law Narrowly https://t.co/kFWR7CJlT5 2019-06-17
- No Take-Backs, No Do-Overs, No Data Replevin https://t.co/JSsSyrdl5S 2019-06-17
- Privacy beach claim not subject to mandatory arbitration Butt v. Kiewit Energy Corporation, 2019 NLSC 119 https://t.co/FZkjWSAyAL 2019-06-17
- Looking for the elusive Goldilocks standard of online content moderation https://t.co/CFuemBpGdr 2019-06-17
- Highlighted Posts
- Browsewraps, fair dealing and Blacklock’s Reporter v Canada: a critical commentary
- CASL: the unofficial FAQ, regulatory impact statement, and compliance guideline
- Change and the Copyright Modernization Act
- Contracting for a cloud computing deal?
- Democracy under threat: Parliament must act
- Developments in computer, Internet and e-commerce law: the year in review (2018-2019)
- Fact checking Michael Geist’s criticisms of the FairPlay site blocking proposal
- Google v Equustek: worldwide de-indexing order against Google upheld by Supreme Court
- Hyperlinking and ISP liability clarified by Supreme Court in Crookes case
- Intellectual property education: are Canadian law schools doing enough to support innovation?
- Is Google a publisher according to Google? The Google v Equustek and Duffy cases
- Law and Innovation: Is Intellectual Property a Path to Progress
- Michael Geist: A question of values
- Michael Geist’s attack on artists over Tariff 8
- Michael Geist’s defense of Canada’s indefensible anti-spam law CASL
- Most popular intellectual property and technology law blogs
- OPC position on online reputation: search engines must de-index privacy violating personal information
- PIPEDA’s global extra-territorial jurisdiction: A.T. v. Globe24h.com
- TPP, copyright, e-commerce and digital policy: a reply to Michael Geist
- US court thumbs its nose at Supreme Court of Canada: Google v Equustek
- Why the CRTC should endorse FairPlay’s website-blocking plan: a reply to Michael Geist
- TwitterMy Tweets
- Interesting Links
- 1709 Copyright Blog
- Canadian Privacy Law Blog
- CanLii
- Copyhype
- Copyright Alliance
- Copyright Board
- Copyright See-Saw (Dr. Ficsor)
- eLegal Canton
- Entertainment & Media Law Signal
- Fight Spam (Government of Canada)
- FOSS Patents
- FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT
- Inforrm’s Blog
- Intellectual Property Blog
- Intellectual Property Watch
- Internet cases
- IP Osgoode
- IP Whiteboard
- IPBlog.ca
- IPKat
- Kluwer Copyright Blog
- Music • Technology • Policy
- Patently-O
- Plagiarism Totday
- Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log
- Spicy IP
- Technology & Marketing Law Blog
- The Trichordist
- ABOUT
This site is published by Barry Sookman personally. It is not affiliated with McCarthy Tétrault or any of its clients. Full bio here. - Archives
