Last December, I appeared before the CRTC as part of Bill C-11 hearings, where I emphasized the need for the Commission to pay attention to competition, consumer choice, and affordability. My takeaway from that appearance was that “my intervention met with skepticism from some Commissioners who see their role as guardians of the broadcasting system on behalf of longstanding beneficiaries with little regard for the impact on consumers or the risks to competition.” It turns out that was a pretty good read of the situation as this week’s Bill C-11 streaming ruling acts as if consumers, competition, and affordability are irrelevant issues that are at best someone else’s concern. The result is that Canadians has been largely removed from broadcasting and Internet policy at the regulator, expected to pay up and shut up.
Latest Posts
CRTC Bill C-11 Ruling “Makes Web Giants Pay” But it is Canadian Consumers That Will Get the Bill
The CRTC has released its much-anticipated Bill C-11 ruling on the initial mandated contributions from Internet streaming services. The headline the Commission and government will promote is that the services will be required to contribute 5% of their Canadian revenues to support various Canadian funding programs that support film and TV production, news, and music. The decision is a perfect illustration of a sector that is too often focused on regulatory payments rather than market-based success with incredible micromanagement of funding in which the CRTC is turned into a policy funding machine of the government (no surprise that government officials spent last week calling stakeholders for advance supportive comments). For the moment, the actual contributions from Internet streaming services are ignored, an updated definition of Canadian content doesn’t exist, commercial success is irrelevant, and subsidies for the news operations of companies such as Bell and Rogers are encouraged. To top it off, the streaming services are required to pay but are unable to access the funds even as they invest in production in Canada. Bill C-11 was about “making web giants pay” and that is what the CRTC was determined to do even if it is consumers that will ultimately get the bill.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings
Bill S-210, the mandated age verification bill for pornography sites that in reality targets everything from Google Search to Netflix, was expected to be the subject of extensive hearings by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. But after a Conservative filibuster, it appears that there will be only one hearing and that the bill will be reported back to the House unamended. Before that vote, this week’s Law Bytes podcast offers up a “what could have been” hearing on the bill. It features my mock opening statement alongside responses to some of the actual questions raised by MPs on issues such as privacy, website blocking, and poorly defined terms in the bill.
Huge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada: Federal Court Rules Digital Lock Rules Do Not Trump Fair Dealing
The Federal Court has issued a landmark decision (Blacklock’s Reports v. Attorney General of Canada) on copyright’s anti-circumvention rules which concludes that digital locks should not trump fair dealing. Rather, the two must co-exist in harmony, leading to an interpretation that users can still rely on fair dealing even in cases involving those digital locks. The decision could have enormous implications for libraries, education, and users more broadly as it seeks to restore the copyright balance in the digital world. The decision also importantly concludes that merely requiring a password does not meet the standard needed to qualify for copyright rules involving technological protection measures. If this all sounds technical, this post provides the necessary background and then reviews the decision.
This is Who We Are Now
There was another shooting at a Jewish school in Montreal yesterday, which led to what has become the Canadian version of “thoughts and prayers”, namely a politician lamenting that “this isn’t who we are.” But months of escalating antisemitism make it clear that this is exactly who we are. Just this week, there were shootings at two Jewish schools in Canada, testimony at an Ottawa school board hearing on appalling antisemitism, a mother pulled her child out of a Burlington school due to antisemitism, a lawsuit was filed against OCAD, an Ontario university, for failing to provide Jewish students with a safe environment, and four university presidents told a Commons committee that antisemitism is a problem on campus and that the messaging coming out of the encampments are antisemitic. And it’s only Thursday.
Recent Posts
Pay Up and Shut Up: How The CRTC Has Removed Canadians From Broadcast and Internet Policy 
CRTC Bill C-11 Ruling “Makes Web Giants Pay” But it is Canadian Consumers That Will Get the Bill 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings 
Huge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada: Federal Court Rules Digital Lock Rules Do Not Trump Fair Dealing 
This is Who We Are Now
