Commentary Follow-up

In the article “Take-down notices set to bite”, the author writes about the new law dealing with copyright in Australia. The laws are designed to create harmonization between the U.S. and Australian copyright laws. However based on the results of the American laws, the Australian government should not so readily pursue this course. The principle behind the copyright law is sound, in that ISPs have the technical ability to cut the access of users who plagiarize. However, if the ISPs need not actively patrol for copyright infringements, then the Australian system would need to rely on copyright holders. They would need to seek out and report violations of copyright law, as is the current U.S. system. But the U.S. system is flawed if in fact ISPs are flooded with take-down notices. How is the ISP to decide what is plagiarism and what is the furtherance of an idea? How is the ISP to decide what should be considered fair-dealing? ISPs should not have to take on the role of policing the internet, or adopt the quasi-judicial function of determining what is, and is not a copyright infringement. This is not their area of expertise. Often times, governments look to ISPs to implement technical measures because ISPs have the knowledge and expertise to do so. By extension, ISPs should not be required to take on role outside of their traditional roles. Governmental agencies should determine what an infringement is; ISPs should build into the architecture some means to affect the laws.

The take-down law does have the benefit of not providing a “safe harbour” for ISPs who either profit from the copyright infringement, or for ISPs who know about an infringement and do not take steps to end it. In these instances, copyright owners can rightfully bring an action against the ISP.

COMMENTARY

Take Down notices set to bite

http://aunoticeandtakedown.notlong.com/

This article deals with the fact that in Australia Internet Service Providers will be able to retain access to ‘safe harbour’ rules that will limit the liability they have for the breaches of copyright that their customers take part in. This comes under new laws that are designed to seal the Free Trade Agreement with the US. The copyright amendment bill that is supposed to come into force January 1st will align Australia’s property laws with US laws. The bill that they are proposing is a technical one, it will not involve any change in policy.
With this the ISPs will not be expected to scan their network for infringing material but they are required make any infringements known and put a stop to them. As of now ISPs are being quite cautious because they are not completely sure how this new system will work. The most important aspect that the ISPs understand and will be briefed on, is how the take-downs will work and as well the impact on the safe harbour provisions.
Also, there is some concern by the US that this new proposal will not be able to properly protect against these copyright infringements in the Australian context. There is also some speculation about whether the computer industry will be able to comply with these new procedures by the new year. Many believe that it is unreasonable that this will occur.
There are also many concerns about finding a flexible procedure that will work for the Australian system. But know of this will be known until it is able to be brought before parliament. Overall, there is a positive outlook for these new procedures because their government has been very attentive and receptive to the concerns of the industry.
Copyright has become a very important and serious issue in the growing technological era. The internet provides a very easy way for users to access almost anything they want. Many of these items are under some type of copyright and are being illegally obtained. The article here refers to just one instance of an attempt to put regulations in place that can stop this and place a punishment on those that are violating these regulations. A lot of work must still be done but counties are getting closer to putting a stop to the infringement of copyright that is taking place around the world.

Commentary

Numbers don't crunch against downloading
http://geistp2pmythspartone.notlong.com

This article deals with the issue of file sharing and the effect that peer-to-peer companies have on the music industry. Members of the Canadian music industry have begun to lobby in order to have the government reform Canada’s copyright legislation. The main argument is that ‘music downloading has devastated the industry”. The government has responded by placing the onus on ISPs despite that the government previous stated that the ISPs were not responsible for the actions that their subscribers took part in. ISPs were not happy to hear this because they cannot track everyone, it should ultimately fall on the individual taking part in the downloading. Also, there was an attempt to bring the copyright issue back into the spotlight, but there were three issues that were lost among the many claims of damage due to music downloading. The first one dealt with the fact that the side effects of industry-supported copyright reforms were not dealt with. As well, by emphasizing copyright reform, the industry failed to focus sufficient attention on government for Canadian music. The final issue was that the industry has failed to make the case that music downloading is significantly harmful to Canadian artists.It is hard to tell the actual financial impact from music downloading but Statistics Canada has stated that the financial impact has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, it has been said the there are other factors that have brought down CD sales other then music downloading. For instance, the growth of DVD sales has been significantly large in the last 4 years and therefore the shelf size for CDs has begun to shrink. As well, U.S. census data has revealed that people are not listening to as much music as they used to. The data suggests that people are spending more time on cell phones, playing videogames etc. Although it cannot be proved one hundred percent that music downloading is the main factor in the decline of CD sales there are still many steps that can be taken to prevent it. For example, one can disrupt file sharing or make it cheaper to legally download music. These are only some suggestions that can help the music industry each their goal. If the music industry truly feels that illegal file sharing on the internet is causes them loses then they should continue to fight for regulation that can help them achieve their goal.

Ineffectiveness of Copyright Law

What features of the Internet and new information communication technologies raise questions about the effectiveness of copyright law in protecting the interests of copyright owners?
Copyright law is no longer effective in protecting the interests of copyright owners. New information communication mediums, including the internet, have made the passing of ideas quick and easy. While copyright laws still govern what material can be communicated over these mediums, the anonymity that users of the new technologies enjoy, make it increasingly difficult to enforce the laws. This anonymity is largest impediment for effective enforcement of copyright laws. A prime example is the current dispute between the music industry and ISPs. At times, over 850 million songs are shared over the internet, without consent from copyright owners. In order for the music industry to protect it’s copyright, it needs to track down who is creating and sharing the music files. In order to put a name and address with an IP address, the music industry is relying on ISPs to provide the information. However, ISPs are expectedly concerned about releasing client information, stating that its clients have an expectation of privacy. Further, users of file sharing software, such as Kazaa, often use aliases when signed on, making it that much more difficult to identify them.
Another feature of the Internet as an information communication technology, is the ease of access it provide. Users can access the internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It’s inexpensive. File sharing has become free, quick and easy for many people, with just a few clicks to get the process started. As more people become Internet users, there will be more anonymous contact between individuals. This will lead to more information communication.

Purpose of PIPEDA

Is the statement of statutory purpose in section 3 of PIPEDA an appropriate approach to privacy protection?

Purpose

3. The purpose of this Part is to establish, in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

The statutory purpose in section 3 of PIPEDA is an appropriate approach to privacy protection. The statement is broad enough to encompass the two major sides of the privacy debate; the privacy rights of the individuals and the needs of the industry and government. The term “need of organizations” is broad enough as well to include both government and private institutions. Technology advances further on a daily basis, and in order to participate in the use of these advancements, we often times need to share pieces of our personal information. Many times if we are not forthcoming with our personal information, we cannot use the services offered by new technologies. So how can we protect our rights over our own personal information? PIPEDA can help protect us. In the purpose statement, it is recognized that “technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information.” If the legislation can provide rules that govern how organizations collect, use and disclose our personal information in our ever advancing technological era, then we have another tool for privacy protection; a tool which can balance organizational expertise with the knowledge of the average citizen. The purpose of PIPEDA balances this form of protection, with the need of industry and government to access and sometimes share the information. Technology advancements have made for anonymity in many financial arrangements. Much of the risk taken in these relationships are with large institutions dealing with private individuals. These institutions must be provided a means of protecting their investments, and a minimum method of doing so is identity confirmation. Institutions should rightly be permitted to collect some personal information of customers, and disclose the information for legitimate purposes (ie. Credit worthiness).

Commentary

FORCES JOIN IN BATTLE AGAINST JUNK MAIL
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503059.html

In today’s society email has become a dominant means for people to send mail and contact one another. Within the email world has come junk mail or Spam. The idea of junk email has become an important issue all over the world. Many countries have already begun to take shape and become institutionalized; this is because many people in no matter what context are effect by junk email. In Israel, Spam has become a serious problem. It has been said that 65 per cent of email sent in Israel is Spam. Therefore, a non-profit organization has been set up in the hope to unite Israel’s Internet users against junk mail and to “lobby for a Knesset initiative to enforce restrictions on disseminators of junk mail.” Within the last few months, Israel has been trying to come up with ways to regulate this problem. They found that technological solutions do not work and the best solution would be a legislative one. For Instance, a bill against junk email has been sponsored by attorney Haim Ravia and MK Roman Bronfman. With this bill they would create a database of users who do not want junk mail. Any Internet users would be able to join at no cost. If this bill were to be passed it would prohibit sending junk email and set penalties for those who violate them.
Israel is not the only country taking the necessary steps to place regulation on junk email. The United States already has legislation against junk email and has already begun to punish those who violate it. It is expected that the new anti-Spam organization in Israel will be involved in a lot of work, but it will be worth it if their efforts result in success. Spam has become a serious problem and countries should all move to implement regulations of their own to stop/control the problem

follow-up to response question

How Important is privacy as a "value" in Canadian society?

Privacy seems to be a very important value in Canadian society. As Peter has stated in his response, privacy is much different but not less important then it was 25 years ago. I fully agree with what he is saying. He mentioned that there are three key differences in privacy today, technology, democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technology is an important issue when dealing with privacy. This is because it has become a great issue in today’s society when dealing with privacy on the Internet. The problem with this is that employers are often worried about what their employees are doing/sending on their computers and are looking for a way to monitor this. But that therefore leads into the issue as to whether that would be a violation of privacy. With the Internet being fairly new invention there are not many laws and regulations to deal with this. As the Morgan article indicates, the Canadian Courts have not yet even begun to deal with this issue, but some say that if the employer sees fit he can look into his employees internet. Many Canadians would not agree with this because privacy is an important aspect of their life that they do not want taken away. Since privacy is a very important aspect of our lives as Canadians, it is hard to have an aspect of our lives that is not fully protected. Canadians are used to having many fundamental rights and freedoms that are guaranteed as part of their citizenship. But as Peter mentioned in his response, these rights are not absolute and that is completely true when dealing with the Internet, there are exceptions that always come with everything. The privacy of Canadians needs to be valued and protected the best that it can.

Peter's posts

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you know that some of my posts are under Tom's name, until tonight I had been having trouble accessing our blog. I sent Tom my work and he posted it (I only did 3 of the 5 postings). Thanks again Tom for your help. I think I've finally got the blog figured out so no more confusion.

Peter.

Question Response

Posted November 9th, 04. By: Peter Gillich
How important is privacy as a "value" in Canadian society?

Article by Charles Morgan can be found on WebCT on the reading list for 08/11.

As a society we have a long standing commitment to protecting fundamental rights and freedoms . Freedom of speech, freedom of association and religion are just a few of the many rights and freedoms that we as Canadians are guaranteed. A person’s right to privacy however, is a relatively recent addition to the list of rights and freedoms we consider to be fundamental. In the Hunter v. Southam Inc case the Supreme Court of Canada stated that one of the main objectives of Section 8 of the Charter is "to protect individuals from unjustified State intrusions upon their privacy".
Today an individuals concept of privacy is likely to be very different then it was 25 years ago.
That is not to say that people twenty years ago did not value their privacy because surely they did, I mean that 25 years ago the societal, technological and the legal landscape was very different. In the McGill Law Journal paper three key differences exist today that have greatly influenced our perpectives on privacy; technology, democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have all impacted how seriously we value our privacy. I think our society has always considered privacy to be an important value, as Justice La Forest J. wrote in a judgement "grounded in man’s physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well being of the individual. For this reason alone, it is worthy of Constitutional protection…" Only now in modern times, we seem to value privacy more then ever.
It is not surprising though, that consistant with the rest of the rights we are guaranteed under the Charter, that our right to privacy and autonomy is not absolute. As a society we acknowledge that there are circumstances where it is legitimate to violate a persons privacy in the name of some greater societal good. So we value privacy more today then we did 25 years ago, but like all of our rights there are exceptions.