+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Class11jan1713post

Class11jan1713post

Date post: 29-Nov-2014
Category:
Upload: mgeist
View: 803 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
 
20
regulation of internet commerce class eleven - january 17, 2013 professor michael geist university of ottawa, faculty of law
Transcript
Page 1: Class11jan1713post

regulation of internet commerceclass eleven - january 17, 2013

professor michael geist

university of ottawa, faculty of law

Page 2: Class11jan1713post

Friday’s Class

• Shopify, 126 York Street, Byward Market (east of Dalhousie, above Market Organics store)

Page 3: Class11jan1713post

Exam details

• 10:00 - 4:00

• Download from course site/pick up at school

• Submit to secretariat or email via Yahoo Mail or Gmail

– Login (instructions on the exam)

– Email exam as attachment to [email protected]

– Include only your student number

• I will post student numbers of exams received on course site

• Format

Page 4: Class11jan1713post

who is an intermediary?

• Bell/Rogers/Telus• ebay• Amazon.com• Google• Facebook• Craigslist• Microsoft• UPS/Fedex• Visa/Mastercard/Paypal• Bloggers

Page 5: Class11jan1713post

what responsibility?

• No liability or responsibility for content or activities.

• An obligation to act only under a court order. • An obligation to act if made aware of illegal or

defamatory content. • An obligation to actively monitor content or

activities for illegal or defamatory content. • An obligation to control content. • An obligation to control content with personal

liability attached to the obligation.

Page 6: Class11jan1713post

U.S. Developments

• Cubby v. Compuserve (1991)

• Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995)

• CDA s. 230– Interactive computer service

– Zeran v. AOL (1997)

• DMCA - notice and takedown

Page 7: Class11jan1713post

Canadian Developments

• What role for the intermediary?– Network– Copyright– Privacy

Page 8: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Network

• Guidelines for Reviewing Traffic Management– Consumer can complain or CRTC investigate cases of discrimination– If consumer presents evidence, ISP must:

• demonstrate that the ITMP is designed to address the need and achieve the purpose and effect in question, and nothing else;

• establish that the ITMP results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible;

• demonstrate that any harm to a secondary ISP, end-user, or any other person is as little as reasonably possible; and

• explain why, in the case of a technical ITMP, network investment or economic approaches alone would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.

Page 9: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Network

• Guidelines for Reviewing Traffic Management– Other considerations:

• Economic over technical• traffic management that degrades or prefers one application

over another may warrant investigation under section 27(2) of the Act

• Throttling of time sensitive traffic with noticeable impact requires prior approval

• Deep packet inspection: "not to use for other purposes personal information collected for the purposes of traffic management and not to disclose such information."

Page 10: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Network

• ISP Traffic Management Disclosure Requirements:

– why they are being introduced– who is affected– when it will occur– what Internet traffic is subject to the traffic

management– how it will affect an Internet user's experience,

including specific impact on speed

Page 11: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright• SOCAN v. CAIP

– Tariff 22 - starts in 1996 as music download tariff– Targets ISPs for activity on their networks– Caching

Section 2.4 (1)

For the purposes of communication to the public by telecommunication,(b) a person whose only act in respect of the communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public consists of providing the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate the work or other subject-matter does not communicate that work or other subject-matter to the public;

Page 12: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright“I conclude that the Copyright Act, as a matter of legislative policy established by Parliament, does not impose liability for infringement on intermediaries who supply software and hardware to facilitate use of the Internet.  The attributes of such a “conduit”, as found by the Board, include a lack of actual knowledge of the infringing contents, and the impracticality (both technical and economic) of monitoring the vast amount of material moving through the Internet, which is prodigious.”

Page 13: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright• Nothing• Notice and Takedown

– Safe harbour contingent on takedown on notification– “Put back” mechanism

• Notice and Termination– France, NZ, UK experiment with termination systems

• Notice and Notice– Canada, Chile

Page 14: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 15: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 16: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 17: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 18: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 19: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright

Page 20: Class11jan1713post

Intermediary - Copyright


Recommended