Michael Geist

I would highly recommend Michael Geist's blog and writing to anyone who follows piracy issues. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

A couple years ago, I asked Michael Geist[1] a similar question. Me: I am a Canadian citizen and am rather concerned by what appears to be increasing online censorship and erosion of privacy rights in Australia and the UK. If it can happen there, it can happen here. I'd like to do my part to ensure that we can effectively oppose bad public policy when it's proposed in Canada. I deeply respect both the EFF and the ACLU for their work in the United States, but I'm not familiar with equivalent organizations for Canada. Do you have any suggestions as to where should I be sending my holiday donations? Michael Geist: Thanks for your note. There are several groups in Canada that do great work on these issues: 1. CIPPIC - the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (cippic.ca). I founded this tech law clinic at the University of Ottawa, the only one of its kind in Canada. 2. Open Media - based in Vancouver 3. CCLA - the Canadian Civil Liberties Association 4. CJFE - Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression 5. BCCLA - BC Civil Liberties Association All do great work with limited resources. [1]: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

While I'm not an American, it will be very interesting to watch how Mr. Lessig is able to raise awareness of government corruption and to see how successful his efforts are. Here in Canada, the government seems to be looking into updating copyright legislation in some, shall we say, suspiciously biased ways. If his methods are successful, I hope we can adapt them to the Canadian system. The Canadian who seems to fill a similar spokesperson / visionary niche as Mr. Lessig is Michael Geist (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/). He was the figurehead in the fight against the recent proposed copyright reforms here and had a great grasp of the situation and how to organize a grass-roots opposition to it. As an aside, I find Mr. Lessig's presentation style quite interesting. For online presentations, where one can't use the flesh and blood presence of the presenter, the frequent updates are a huge attention magnet. It would be a pretty big departure from the 10-20-30 rule, but I wonder how well a business pitch made in this style would work. Another example of a presentation of Mr. Lessig's that exemplifies the style (and is beautifully and passionately presented) is available at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/187 . ("How creativity is being strangled by the law")

I don't know if any data has been published. Michael Geist, a prominent Canadian lawyer who specializes in tech and media law and who manages an active blog on those topics in Canada, has published a good breakdown of the bill as it currently exists (it was essentially rewritten once a deal was made): https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/bill-c-18-is-dead-long-live-bill-c… The bill threw smaller orgs under the bus in favour of larger ones like Torstar and Postmedia, which is par for the course in Canada where the government frequently gives a helping hand to incumbents at the expense of challengers. We love our protectionism.

I recommend this podcast episode on the financial interests involved: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/podcast/episode-172-marc-edge-on-bill-c-18…

> The real problem behind that are various Evangelical groups running scare campaigns against parents and pressure campaigns against ISPs and individual sites. The US was the first with FOSTA/SESTA, the UK followed suit, and here in Germany our media regulators are going nuts as well. 100%. Happening in Canada right now too: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/age-verification-requirements-for-… It's a concerted evangelical Christian campaign across the board. The lobbying groups for these policies - in the UK, Germany, Canada, etc - overlap a lot.

Since we're talking about a case in Canada, it's also worth noting that the RIAA is also trying to exclude "fair use" from the renegotiation of NAFTA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/

Michael Geist has some excellent coverage [1] of TPP, albeit from a Canadian perspective. Biggest problem with TPP in my mind is that it codifies many aspects of IP law overreach - like extending copyright terms even further and mandating DMCA-like anti-circumvetion rules [2]. [1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/ [2] https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publicat…

https://openmedia.org/en/ca Openmedia is an advocacy group that is very active and has a handful of modest successes under its belt. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMedia.ca Another good resource for keeping informed is through the site of law professor Michael Geist. I should note that his focus is a little more on copyright law. http://www.michaelgeist.ca

"The Trouble with the TPP" series by Michael Geist [0] is an excellent view of some of the issues with it, and demonstrates how the huge nature of the TPP makes it difficult to create short (digestible) but powerful arguments against it. It was very much written from Canada's point of view, so it isn't the most convincing argument for why the US, or any other country, shouldn't ratify the treaty. [0] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/

If somebody wants to dig more into Bill C-51, Michael Geist has written a few in-depth articles about the subject: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/?s=bill+c-51

Emperor Harper doesn't need a reason to increase Federal censorship and policing powers. He does it fine all by his lonesome already. If anyone is curious, read Michael Geist's (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/) blog for more details and intelligent commentary on the political details regarding current Canadian digital rights/copyright/surveillance schmucks that Emperor Harper and his Goon Cabinet are hatching up.

> It's online and easy to read That's not new true. Most people are not legal experts with extensive expertise in technology, knowledge of how Canadian courts will interpret the legislation, and knowledge of how governments around the world are trying to attack encryption (ex: they do their best to hide and not to explicitly say it in the legislation). > And let's be real: 99% of the industry already logs everything. That's your opinion. That's not a real scientific claim, and yet you are using it to justify an unprecedented attack on privacy rights. Suspicionless metadata retention has been illegal in the European Union since 2014, and it violates the Charter. There is no world in which it is acceptable. An RCMP witness speaking about the bill during a recent committee meeting literally said the legislation will help them "solve the problem of encryption": https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/05/rcmp-confirms-bill-c-22-concerns-p…

This is a CBC article so keep in mind its bias in favour of the Liberals who pushed this bill through. For anyone interested in a more balanced view, Michael Geist is law professor, research chair, and overall internet policy nerd. I highly recommend his review of the bill: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/04/billc11end/ It's also interesting to put what the Trudeau Liberals are doing in perspective. This is just one of three internet censorship bills that they will pass before 2026. C-11 (this bill), will allow the Liberals to dictate what platforms show. Simply put, the books aren't being censored, they're just telling the book stores what should be on the shelves. It also adds what is effectively a new tax for content creators which the Federal government will distribute for Canadian content. Keep an eye for scandals about how these funds were distributed in a couple of years. C-18 is the next one. In short, the Trudeau Liberals will implement another a tax on links, so aggregators such as Google may be forced to pay when they link to say the CBC. Google has already said they may simply stop linking to news services in Canada if they pass this, giving the government funded Canadian news agencies even more power. Good write up: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/02/billc18reality/ The Online Safety Bill - not yet formally proposed - will likely be the coup de gras. Not much is known yet, but given how easily you can censor anything under the guise of "safety"…

I agree with you, and I don't have a full answer to this. The best short answer I have is: why have almost everything (money, land, power) when, with a push, you could have all of everything? I'm a Canadian. I've been amazed and appalled at how the trucker convoy was handled. The Prime Minister here basically resorted to name calling, disappearing, and then resorting to the nuclear option, abusing the Emergencies Act and freezing bank accounts. The actions don't make sense if we assume the prime minister is a rational actor acting in the best interests of his country. He could've easily de-escalated the situation and met with the truckers when the problem was small. The actions do make more sense if the plan is to pit the people against each other, which, with media support, has been highly successful. There's a lot of hate people who do not wish to be vaccinated, and even against people who just want to have their government-guaranteed freedoms back. Now that hatred has been turned on Russia; I've seen some people ironically say that Putin should get an award for single-handedly ending Covid (not that it is over, just that the news isn't talking about it all the time). Oh, and I should add that the Canadian government wants to censor the internet. Wish I had a better link, but here's a reputable one: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/lobby-harder-canadian-heritage-min… . It is also worth noting…

> Indeed here in Canada ISPs have frequently given subscriber contact information to copyright holders to issue warnings based on bittorrent usage without being legally required to. Citation needed? The “Notice and Notice” regime legally requires the ISP to pass along a notice from a copyright holder that believes your IP infringed their copyright by uploading their material. It does not permit the ISP to give subscriber information to the copyright holder directly unless ordered to do so by a court. Here’s Michael Geist, Canadian lawyer, explaining the system and recent developments regarding ISPs seeking to make such information disclosures more difficult for copyright holders, not less http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/09/notice-the-difference-supreme-court… > My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that the Canadian system for online infringement was formally established in 2012 and came into effect in 2015. The so-called “notice-and-notice” approach grants rights holders the ability to send notifications of alleged infringement to Internet providers, who are required by law to forward the notices to the relevant subscriber and to preserve the data in the event of future legal action. The system does not prevent rights holders from pursuing additional legal remedies, but Internet providers cannot reveal the identity of their subscribers without a court order. > While the system has proven helpful in educating users on the…

Google will comply because it is an intermediary and does not lose power from this decision. It comes out of this decision with more power: the ability to pick and choose which laws it wishes to follow. See this part: > “Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction is, with respect, theoretical. As Fenlon J. noted, “Google acknowledges that most countries will likely recognize intellectual property rights and view the selling of pirated products as a legal wrong” > In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.” And see Micheal Geist's opinion in relation to that section: > "This is a key aspect of the decision as the court has effectively concluded that those seeking global takedown orders do not need to canvass the laws in other countries to consider the potential for conflicts with…

IN depth site , http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

Correct, I remember my dad complaining he can't share Toronto Star articles on Facebook because they block you from posting them. Same with Instagram. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/the-behind-the-scenes-bill-c-18-ba…

While deeply unlikely to change anything it really is important as much noise is made about this as possible. On top of this will be C-34 which is just full no privacy anymore territory https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/06/everything-all-at-once-bill-c-34-c… The gov do all this and then will act surprised as Canada's tech sector finds it even harder to create any consumer facing businesses leaving all the value being captured by the Americans. Surprised pikachus all round.

TBH, I wasn't certain of that either, which was why I'd looked up the background. I'd be surprised if there weren't some common-law precedent or foundation cited in Straus, and should look that up. Michael Geist might be a good source to look to for specifics of Canadian law, though AFAIU the Canadian royalties programme is defined under Public Lending Right: <https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/154625> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right> Geist ... has apparently written on this: <https://www.michaelgeist.ca/tag/public-lending-right/>

Canada is in the same spot with the postal code data being for sale only. Relatedly and famously, Canada Post sued [0] geocoder.ca [1] years ago because it made available a crowdsourced database of postal codes... Years later, the case was settled [2] but yeah. You still have to pay for the "real" data. [0] https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/04/canada-post-geocoder-suit/ [1] https://geocoder.ca/ [2] https://geocoder.ca/?sued=1 (nice url...)

To be clear, Canada is regulating speech online, not just AI and search. Also by Michael Geist not long ago: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/10/crtcregistrationruling/ Basically a service like Rumble, which is publicly traded and has HQ in Toronto must register with the Canadian government to be allowed to continue existing. All political podcasts have been ordered to register with the government. Lets not forget: https://www.international.gc.ca/global-affairs-affaires-mondiales/corp… To be a new journalist, you have to be accredited by the government. Naturally the government doesn't accredit their critics and bans them from going to things like the debates.

Good, this is a consequence of pure rent-seeking lobbying from big newspapers. > There have been 52 registered meetings with Ministers, MPs, and senior officials or roughly one meeting every four days since election day nearly 8 months ago. This represents an astonishing level of access and may help explain why the concerns of independent media and the broader public are missing from the bill. [1] [1]: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/how-did-news-media-canada/

C-11 is about algorithms (more specifically, the requirements that govern algorithms) and discoverability. The former CRTC commissioner as well as the senate confirmed that user generated content is within the scope of the bill: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/11/oops-he-did-again-crtc-chair-ian-s… It is traditional broadcasters that lobbied for this bill. The senate heard months of testimony from digital first creators who believe this bill will negatively impact them. That's why the added the UGC amendment that the government rejected.

Is there any move towards an investigation of some sort into whether Trudeau will face penalties of some sort for invoking these extreme measures without the justification of there being no other law to address the issues? Specifically I am thinking about this interesting interview with Dr. Leah West onthe Michael Geist LawBytes podcast. From about 8 minutes onwards they discuss whether the terrorist justification or the foreign influence justification existed: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/law-bytes-podcast-episode-118/ It is interesting to see some commentators in this HN thread trying to suggest Russian influence. (And also IMO not very convincing). In any case, whatever opinion you have on this, it's a good podcast.

Really surprised to see such a low quality editorial from such a weak newspaper as the Toronto Sun on HN. Here's some actual expert content on this issue: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/not-ready-for-prime-time/

Bell has been pushing for the banning of VPNs for years. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/01/bell-urged-canadian-government-to-…

Detailed analysis in this article: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/08/crunch-time-in-the-nafta-negotiatio… > ... copyright, patent, IP enforcement, and digital policy rules ... The U.S. appears to be pushing for a TPP+ approach – the TPP provisions plus some additional changes it did not get as part of those negotiations. This is notable since Canadian authorities admitted that the TPP went far beyond any previous Canadian free trade agreement. The Canadian starting point is presumably the CPTPP, the revised TPP where Canada successfully argued for the suspension of some of the U.S.-backed provisions.