Author: Dan Glover

CASL and Freedom of Expression –The Writing Is on the WallCASL and Freedom of Expression –The Writing Is on the Wall



On May 1, I participated in a vigorous discussion on the constitutionality of CASL at the 17th Biennial National Conference on Communications Law and Policy hosted by the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa. My talk was on whether CASL could survive a Charter challenge based on freedom of expression grounds. I focused on the recent United Food decision at the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck down the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act for disproportionately impinging on expression rights in order to achieve privacy objectives, and pointed out that CASL might also fall to a similar challenge.

Homeaway.com Decision Threatens to Re-write Trade-mark Law in Canada (But Is it for the Better?)Homeaway.com Decision Threatens to Re-write Trade-mark Law in Canada (But Is it for the Better?)



In a case that could have major ramifications for trade-marks law in Canada, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court has concluded that, when a trade-mark appears on a computer screen website in Canada, regardless where the information may have originated from or be stored, constitutes for Trade-Marks Act purposes, use and advertising in Canada.

This strong conclusion comes from Homeaway.com, Inc. v. Martin Hrdlicka, 2012 FC 1467, a decision released December 12, 2012. In this case, the Applicant sought to expunge a trade-mark registered in 2010 by the Respondent Hrdlicka.

A Reply to William PatryA Reply to William Patry



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.

—————————————————————–

Mr. Patry,

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.

Misleading Parliament? Really?Misleading Parliament? Really?



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.

Renewed Attacks on the “Effect on the Market” FactorRenewed Attacks on the “Effect on the Market” Factor



Beware of misinformation masquerading as the correction of misinformation, a concept George Orwell labelled as “doublethink”. Michael Geist and Howard Knopf are engaged in it again in their blog articles “Bill C-11 Extremism Continues: The Attack on Fair Dealing” and “The Effect on the Market Factor in Fair Dealing/Fair Use Law – What IS the law?” In their crusade to open Canadian copyright law so wide that a convoy of army trucks filled with textbooks and DVDs could drive through it, they are suggesting that Parliament not clarify that “the effect of the dealing on the market for the original work” is the pre-eminent factor in the fair dealing test.

Indirect theories of copyright liabilityIndirect theories of copyright liability



Here is a copy of the presentation I gave at Osgoode’s inaugural IP Intensive Program. The slides deal with theories of indirect infringement in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, and with the safe harbours that also govern the behaviour of Internet

View more presentations from bsookman

Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion (Part II)Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion (Part II)



By Dan Glover

Last week, a dispute arose about the scope of the “fair dealing for the purpose of … education” language proposed in Bill C-32, an Act to Amend the Copyright Act. This dispute was captured in a February 16 blog by John Degen, in which he discussed a running battle with the writer Cory Doctorow about what the Copyright Act currently allows in respect of fair dealing, and what it would allow under the proposed regime. Doctorow’s views are contained here in a responding blog.

En réponse à «Pour démêler la confusion à l’égard du droit d’auteur» (Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion), du Professeur Michael GeistEn réponse à «Pour démêler la confusion à l’égard du droit d’auteur» (Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion), du Professeur Michael Geist



Par Dan Glover,* 9 janvier 2011 (version originale en Anglais)

 Résumé

  • La création d’œuvres protégées par le droit d’auteur pour fins pédagogiques est une entreprise importante et complexe, particulièrement dans un pays aussi vaste, diversifié et peu peuplé comme l’est le Canada. Il faudrait mener une réflexion approfondie avant d’instituer des règles d’utilisation équitable qui menaceraient l’édition pédagogique.
  • L’équité est un concept subjectif qui doit être examiné au cas par cas. Six ans seulement après la décision historique de la Cour suprême dans la cause CCH concernant l’utilisation équitable, la voici saisie à nouveau !

A Response to Professor Michael Geist’s Clearing Up the Copyright ConfusionA Response to Professor Michael Geist’s Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion



Abstract*

·               The creation of copyright works for educational uses is a complex and substantial endeavour, particular in a country as large, diverse and sparsely populated as Canada. Careful thought should be given before adopting fair dealing rules that threaten the health of educational publishing.

·               “Fairness” is an eye-of-the-beholder concept that must be revisited on the facts of every new case. Only six years after the landmark CCH case on “fair dealing”, this issue is returning to the Supreme Court for a second review!