Hypertouch, Inc. v. Azoogle.com, Inc., 2010 WL 2712217 (9th Cir. July 9, 2010) Pleading in federal court is generally a straightforward matter. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires only that the plaintiff set forth a short and plain statement as to why that party is entitled to relief. But in cases involving fraud, there [...]
NDP MP Brian Masse has told the Wire Report that he supports a full legislative review of the anti-spam bill to ensure there are no "sleeper clauses."
Facebook has asked a Quebec court to enforce an $843 million spam judgment it obtained in a California court against Montreal's Adam Guerbuez.
That’s the title of my Slaw post for today. It reads as follows.
The Canadian government introduced two important new bills yesterday. Bill C-29 amends PIPEDA – I’ll leave commentary on that to David Fraser.
Bill C-28 is the “Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act” or FISA. It is essentially the same as the “Electronic Commerce Protection [...]
The government today introduced Bill C-28, the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. The bill carries a new name from the old Bill C-27 (which was titled the Electronic Commerce Protection Act), but the bill is roughly the same as the bill that passed the House of Commons last year. That bill was subject to considerable change based on compromises from all parties. The resulting bill was not as strong as first introduced, but it did garner the support of all four political parties and most observers. The new bill contains some modest changes involving privacy, but most of the core provisions remain unchanged. It deserves broad support and should be placed on the fast track given that it was effectively the subject of extensive hearings from the Industry Committee. For more on the original bill, see here, here, here, and here. A transcript of my appearance before the Industry Committee can be found here.
The government has tabled two bills this morning focused on Internet and technology issues: C-28: Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act and C-29: Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act. More information and analysis to follow.
Parliament resumes this week with the Speech from the Throne today following the unexpected – and unexpectedly contentious – decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reset the legislative agenda through prorogation. The House of Commons may have been quiet but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the calls for a national digital strategy have grown louder in recent months. Last week, the International Telecommunications Union issued its annual global measurement of the information society, which served again to highlight Canada’s sinking global technology ranking. Canada ranked 21st (down from 18th in 2007) in its ICT Development Index, which groups 11 indices including access, use, and technology skills.
Canada’s sliding global ranking reflects 10 years of policy neglect. Other countries prioritized digital issues while leaders here from all parties have been content to rest on the laurels of the late 1990s, only to wake up to a new, less-competitive reality in 2010.
Industry Minister Tony Clement has spoken frequently about the need for a national digital strategy, but concrete policies have been slow in coming. The parliamentary restart presents another opportunity for action. Given the failure to date to articulate a comprehensive digital strategy, perhaps a different approach might work. Following the Speech from the Throne and the budget, there will be about 100 days until the summer break. Clement could set a series of realizable targets during those 100 days. Such targets would not solve ongoing concerns regarding the competitiveness of Canada’s wireless sector or the findings that Canadians pay higher prices for slower Internet speeds than consumers in many other countries, but some momentum could be gained and some quick wins achieved.
A 100-day digital agenda could have four components: new laws, new initiatives, new enforcement, and new policy development.
On the legislative front, Clement should reintroduce the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, the anti-spam bill that passed through the House of Commons and was to have been the subject of Senate hearings earlier this year. Having received all-party support and extensive study, the legislation should be placed on a rocket docket with a commitment to passing the bill before the summer recess.
Two other long-awaited bills should be part of the short-term digital strategy. With the national copyright consultation complete, a digital copyright bill consistent with Clement’s commitment to a forward-looking, technology neutral approach should be introduced within the next 100 days. So, too, should a privacy reform bill, which Clement identified as a priority at the start of 2010.
Beyond new legislation, government can use the next 100 days to lead by example. A new data.gc.ca website with open government datasets like those found in the U.S. and U.K. should be easy to achieve. The government also could follow the Australian approach to solve the crown copyright problem that restricts use of government documents by adopting open licences that grant permission to use documents without formal approval (or the need for a new law).
The government can use the next 100 days to step up its digital enforcement agenda. This includes ensuring Internet providers are compliant with net neutrality requirements and that telemarketers abide by do-not-call legislation.
Finally, longer-term digital agenda issues must be put on the policy front burner. These include discussions on spectrum allocation, digital television transition, removal of Canadian control requirements in the telecom sector, and new media issues.
None of these initiatives will mark an immediate resurgence in Canada’s digital ranking. But after years of missteps, perhaps some baby steps now would put the nation’s digital agenda back on track.
The Globe ran a story over the weekend that estimated the cost of proroguing on Bill C-27, the anti-spam bill. It points to the hours spent debating the bill and the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent working toward its introduction.
Reports this morning indicate that the government plans to prorogue Parliament, effectively shutting it down until March. One of the effects of prorogation is that all bills that have not received royal assent die and must be restarted from the beginning when a new Parliament begins. While the government can try to move bills with broad support quickly back through the process (reinstatement requires approval in the House), the delays are significant. Only 27 of the 64 Government bills introduced during the current session have received royal assent, leaving 37 bills in need of a restart. Of those, at least four involve technology law: C-27 (anti-spam, electronic commerce), C-46 (lawful access), C-47 (lawful access), and C-58 (ISP child pornography reporting). The anti-spam bill was the most advanced, having cleared the House of Commons and slated for review by a Senate Committee early in the new year.
The past twelve months in law and technology were exceptionally active, with new legislation, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings, national consultations, and very public battles over digital issues. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) takes a look back at 2009 from A to Z:
A is for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the secret copyright treaty that generated opposition at home and abroad as details on proposed language leaked out.
B is for Chet Baker, the former jazz great and current lead plaintiff in a $6 billion copyright class action lawsuit filed against the Canadian recording industry for its failure to pay artists for the use of their work.
C is for the Conference Board of Canada, which withdrew three intellectual property reports after acknowledging they contained plagiarized material.
D is for drugs for Africa legislation, which unexpectedly passed second reading in the House of Commons and will be considered by a committee next year.
E is for eBay power sellers, who faced an aggressive campaign by the Canada Revenue Agency to collect unpaid GST. The campaign followed a successful legal effort to force eBay to disclose the sellers' identities.
F is for Facebook, which agreed to make significant privacy changes following a well-publicized investigation by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
G is for Google Street View, which launched in Canada this fall, but not before a House of Commons committee probed the likely impact of the new mapping feature.
H is for Louis Rene Hache, who was convicted on charges under the Criminal Code for the illegal reproduction of the film "Dan in Real Life" at a Montreal movie theatre.
I is for i4i, the tiny Toronto firm that scored a big patent victory over software giant Microsoft.
J is for Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement, who presided over Canada's first national copyright consultation since 2001.
K is for CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein, who was in the spotlight with hearings on regulation of new media, Internet traffic management, and broadcast fees.
L is for Lawful access legislation introduced by Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan in June. Bills C-46 and C-47 languished, however, and have yet to be discussed at committee.
M is for marketing claims on network speed and reliability, the subject of multiple lawsuits that forced Bell and Rogers to drop claims from their advertising campaigns.
N is for net neutrality, which made regulatory and political progress with the release of new CRTC guidelines as well as garnering political support from both the federal Liberal and NDP parties.
O is for one-click, the controversial Amazon.com business method patent that was denied validity by the Canadian Patent Appeal Board.
P is for Psion, the Toronto-owned firm that threatened Dell over the use of the term “netbook.”
Q is for the Queen v. Vasic, a criminal case in which an Ontario court ruled that combining Internet provider customer name and address information with IP address data could render the information sensitive.
R is for Heather Robertson, the freelance writer whose longstanding copyright class action lawsuit neared a conclusive settlement.
S is for spam legislation that was introduced by Tony Clement in April. Bill C-27 is currently before the Senate.
T is for the TV Tax and Local TV Matters marketing campaigns that irritated Canadians from coast to coast.
U is for unwanted telemarketing calls that kept coming despite the existence of a national do-not-call list.
V is for Joanne Veit, an Alberta judge who ruled that Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner Frank Work was wrong when he concluded the City of Edmonton can't force pawnshops to upload personal client details to an outside company's database.
W is for WindMobile, the operating name of Globalive, a new wireless carrier that was told by the CRTC that it did not comply with foreign control restrictions, only to have the federal Cabinet overrule the regulator weeks later.
X is for the future “X” on electronic voting technologies, which Elections Canada reported it is considering.
Y is for YouTube, which received a video takedown demand from Canada Post. The crown corporation objected to a union-inspired video about the mail carrier's CEO.
Z is for Zoocasa, the real estate search site that was sued by Century 21 Canada for scraping listings from its website.