Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Canada Strikes at Spam
Canada's national spam task force delivered its report on May 17 to Industry Minister David Emerson. Internet Law & Strategy Board of Editors member Michael Geist was a member of the task force and served as the co-chair of the law and regulatory working group.
Geist will have more to say about the task force report soon, but he wanted to want to comment on the law and enforcement recommendations, which will likely generate the most amount of interest. The task force helped facilitate a series of cases (including my own privacy complaint against the Ottawa Renegades over unsolicited commercial e-mail they sent me) to test the current Canadian legal framework. Quite simply, the task force concluded that the current laws are not good enough. While Canada alone is not able to deal with the spam problem, it must at least deal with the spammers in our own backyard. The current legal framework contains some significant holes and the recommendations call for a spam-specific law accompanied by a new separate body to work on policy and enforcement coordination.
The most important statutory recommendation is a call for a new rule in a spam-specific law that would make it an offense to fail to abide by an opt-in regime for sending unsolicited commercial e-mail. This would set a critical baseline for Canada ' opt-in (as compared to the U.S. opt-out approach) with penalties. It also sends a clear message that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), 48-49 Elizabeth II Chapter 5, the national privacy legislation, is simply ill equipped to deal with the most serious spam issues.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?