News

  • – 2010-12-23 –

    The Copyright Board has granted Access Copyright's controversial application for an interim tariff in the post-secondary educational institution tariff proceeding.  The Board's reasons for granting the application will follow.  The proposed interim tariff is based on Access Copyright's older licensing agreement, and includes an optional schedule of digital permissions. The Board will accept comments on the proposed interim tariff's wording until January 21, 2011.

  • – 2010-12-23 –

    The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave SOCAN v. Bell, in which the Copyright Board and Federal Court of Appeal had agreed that consumer "previews" of 30 second music clips were fair dealing since they amounted to consumer research.

  • – 2010-12-10 –

    CIPPIC has filed a submission on behalf of the Canadian Association of Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Students responding to Access Copyright's application for an interim tariff in the Access Copyright Post-Secondary Tariff matter before the Copyright Board.

  • – 2010-12-10 –

    The Google Policy Fellowship sponsors students to work on the important  Internet and technology policy issues of our time, including censorship, digitization, privacy, broadband access, spectrum, copyright, open government, and more. The host organizations provide students with  hands-on experience and substantive opportunities in research, policy and legislative analysis, gassroots organization, and issue campaign management.

    2011 Fellows will receive a stipend of $7500 for 10 weeks of work, contingent upon reviews from their host organizations. Please review the frequently asked questions and program information, and contact policyfellowship@google.com with any additional questions.

  • – 2010-12-03 –

    Catch CIPPIC's Director, David Fewer, as he discusses pressing issues in law & technology with Nora Young on CBC's Spark.  Discussions include Canada's most recent attempt to update its Copyright Laws and an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing (in which CIPPIC is intervening) that will decide whether someone can be sued for merely hyperlinking to a webpage containing defamatory materials.

  • – 2010-11-25 –

    [Le français suit l'anglais]


    RULING OF THE BOARD

    In its Notice of November 15, 2010 (the "Notice"), the Board acknowledged as
    objectors the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Association of
    Canadian Community Colleges, Athabasca University and the British Columbia
    Association of Institutes and Universities.

    The purpose of this Ruling is to identify those who may participate to the
    examination process of the above-referenced proposed tariff as intervenors with full
    participatory rights.

  • – 2010-11-24 –

    CIPPIC, on behalf of its clients, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) has submitted its views to the Copyright Board on its "standing" ruling in the Access Copyright Post-Secondary Tariff Proceeding. CAUT/CFS take the following positions:

  • – 2010-11-19 –

    In an open letter to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, CIPPIC and a number of civil society organizations voice serious concerns with respect to Bill C-29, currently before the House and scheduled for second reading early next week. The Bill, ironically dubbed the 'Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act', proposes a number of amendments to Canada's federal privacy protection statute, PIPEDA. Far from improving privacy, the Bill threatens to erode civil liberties in serious ways. Even where it attempts to improve privacy, it falls short by failing to provide any incentive for compliance.

    The most troubling elements of the Bill pave the way to a dramatic expansion in the ways in which private businesses can be used in investigations against their own customers. While privacy should never be a bar to legitimate investigations of actual wrongs, the law provides mechanisms such as warrants, production orders, mandatory disclosure laws, and discovery processes that ensure investigations can occur with proper safeguards in place. This Bill essentially bypasses all of these safeguards by adding and expanding exceptions that permit organizations to simply give away their customer's information and includes elements evocative of the US PATRIOT Act and all the civil liberties violations that accompanied it.

  • – 2010-11-15 –

    CIPPIC filed its factum in Crookes v. Newton, which will decide the fate of the hyperlink in defamation law.  The case, on appeal from the B.C. Court of Appeal, has raised the issue of whether and under what circumstances posting a hyperlink to online content that contains defamatory statements can amount to publication of that content.  The plaintiff, Crookes, argues that posting a hyperlink draws the reader's attention to any defamatory statements contained in the linked article and this is sufficient to impose liability on the poster of the link.  He argues further that, by nature and convention, by posting a hyperlink the author of an article intends to incorporate the linked content into the original article.

  • – 2010-11-03 –

    The Federal Government is once again attempting to pass a legislative package purportedly aimed at 'updating' investigative techniques in light of developments in technology.  While only two of the three Bills that will make up the latest reincarnation of this package have been introduced so far, past attempts have included serious erosions of civil liberties and a steadfast refusal to make comparable 'updates' to privacy protections.  The legislative package, referred to in the past as 'Lawful Access' or 'Lawful Surveillance', has been carefully calculated to harnass the incredible surveillance powers of new technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones, as well as of the various private intermediary entities that are required for these technologies to function.