Blacklock’s, Spam, CRTC, and ATIP

Readers will be aware that I have been following and commenting on Blacklock’s “litany of litigation”, as I have called it, against the Federal Government and several of its agencies.

An alert reader has advised that Blacklock’s has apparently had some interaction with the CRTC regarding Canada’s anti-spam legislation. This led to an “undertaking” by Blacklock’s.  It’s brief, so I’ll quote it in full:

Undertaking: 1395804 Ontario Ltd (dba. Blacklock’s Reporter)

File No.: 9094-2018-00502

Date of undertaking (signed by all the parties): 28 September 2018

Under section 21 of the Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, C. 23 (CASL, or the Act)

Person entering into an undertaking

1395804 Ontario Limited doing business as Blacklock’s Reporter (Blacklock’s Reporter).

Acts and omissions covered by the undertaking and provisions at issue

Blacklock’s Reporter has voluntarily entered into an undertaking with a designated person of the Commission (Commission staff) concerning alleged violations of paragraphs 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), 6(2)(c), subsection 11(1) of the Act, as well as non-compliance with paragraph 2(1)(d), subsection 2(2), and section 3 of the Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations (CRTC) SOR/2012-36 (CRTC Regulations).

Following an investigation, Commission staff alleged that commercial electronic messages (CEMs) sent by Blacklock’s Reporter between 22 December 2017 and 21 March 2018 to market and promote its subscription-based news service were sent without the recipients’ consent. In addition, Commission staff alleged that CEMs sent between 16 August 2017 and 21 March 2018 did not contain appropriate sender identification and a readily-performed unsubscribe mechanism as required by sections 6 and 11 of the Act.

Summary of conditions

Blacklock’s Reporter has agreed to put in place a compliance program to ensure that all parties sending commercial electronic messages on its behalf comply with the Act and Regulations.

The compliance program includes the review of current compliance practices, the development, and implementation of corporate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Act, the tracking of commercial electronic message complaints and subsequent resolution, as well as audit measures for reporting the program’s implementation to Commission staff.

Commission staff determined that there would be no incremental benefit to promote compliance by imposing a monetary payment on Blacklock’s Reporter. Instead, given the size and scope of the business, Commission staff have encouraged Blacklock’s Reporter to invest funds in developing a compliance program, including technical tools and staff training that will ensure full compliance with section 6 of CASL.

This undertaking fully settles all alleged or potential responsibility of Blacklock’s Reporter regarding all commercial electronic messages sent by the company during the period between 16 August 2017 and the date of this undertaking.

Date modified: 

2018-09-28

Ironically, given Blacklock’s reliance on the ATIP mechanism, an attempt to obtain information about spam complaints against Blacklock’s led to the following result:

A-2018-00013

All spam complaints against 1395804 Ontario Ltd between January 1, 2013 and June 14, 2018.

All exempted

0

(highlight added)

This means that no documents were provided to whoever submitted this ATIP request.

HPK

Revisiting CRTC's Submissions from 2009 Re Copyright Board Reform & the Digital Economy

I just ran again across this rather unusual submission on copyright reform that was very prescient. It's from none other than the CRTC from 2009, when Konrad von Finckenstein was the Chair, after having retired as a judge of the Federal Court. I commented on it at the time - and it's worth reading again. Much if not all of what is recommended regarding the Board's procedures could be accomplished with regulations, and would not even need legislation.

HPK

***

Submission to Public Consultation on Copyright Reform

September 11, 2009

Introduction

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is pleased to make a submission to the public consultations on copyright reform. Given its particular role within the communications sector, the CRTC is providing proposals for copyright reform that will help position Canada as a leader in the digital economy.

The CRTC is an independent public authority that regulates and supervises the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications systems. It is mandated pursuant to the objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunication sectors contribute to economic, cultural and social prosperity in Canada. The CRTC uses the policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to guide its decision-making. These objectives include Canadian ownership and control, reliable and affordable services, and programming that reflects our diversity, bilingual character and draws on Canadian talent.

Telecommunications and broadcasting take place in an increasingly digital context, creating new challenges and opportunities for an increasingly converged communications sector. The CRTC has called for a comprehensive national strategy that would allow Canada to maintain a competitive advantage and secure its digital future in a global environment. A key component of such a strategy is the establishment of modern legal frameworks that allow for creation, innovation and competition by the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunication sectors. Such legal frameworks would include clear rules that foster innovation, encourage investment, and establish efficient processes at a reasonable cost.

Canada's current copyright regime challenges entities that are regulated by the CRTC. Through its regulations, policies and decisions, the CRTC requires regulated entities to contribute to the fulfillment of the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act. These requirements include an obligation to give priority to Canadian programming, an obligation to broadcast local programming, including local news, as well as the establishment of regulatory mechanisms to ensure the continued vitality of the Canadian independent production sector. Growing copyright fees should not put into question broadcasters' ability to meet these requirements in support of legislated policy objectives.
Further, barriers to consumption of copyright works that may be created through uncertain rules for private users may impair the development of new business models that create opportunities to strengthen the broadcasting system as a whole.

Clearly reforming the Copyright Act will be of benefit to all Canadians. Given the CRTC's specific regulatory mandate, this submission only focuses on reforms that may have a significant impact on the sector under its regulatory authority.

Analysis and Recommendations

1. A Single Tariff-Setting Process for Radio

Under the Copyright Act, the Board establishes the value of various uses of copyright material. The Board is an independent regulatory body that establishes the fair market value of uses of copyright material based on the evidence presented to it. As such, the Board is a rate-setting body, rather than a policy-setting body.

Commercial radio stations currently pay royalties to a number of rights holders (authors/composers, performers and makers of sound recordings/producers) for the right to communicate and reproduce musical content. Until the late 1990s, those radio stations paid only one collective for the right to communicate musical works. Moreover, there are three additional proposed tariffs awaiting certification by the Board for the reproduction of sound recordings and performers' performances by commercial radio stations. Since this is the first time that these tariffs will be certified, the final amount of new royalties is not known.

The CRTC is of the view that the number of Copyright Board certified tariffs is becoming increasingly burdensome in an environment of networked, digitally-driven communications.
The system of collective administration of copyright regulated by the Board is intended to provide efficient and fair access to copyright works in circumstances where transactional licensing with individual rights owners is not practical for all parties. Yet, this system has become unwieldy in Canada with the growth of new rights and new uses across digital platforms.

This can be addressed by changing the tariff certification regimes in the Copyright Act. The current regime should be eliminated and replaced with a new regime that results in a single tariff regime that is custom designed and technology-neutral for the use of musical content by commercial radio stations Such a single tariff regime would include the setting of a fair value for transfer of format and ephemeral recordings. This approach would have the advantage of requiring the Board to assess that evidence based on the use of musical content by radio stations as a whole while also ensuring Canada's continued compliance with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

• The CRTC recommends that the Copyright Act be changed to require the Board to certify a single tariff for the use of musical content by commercial radio stations, establishing in a technology-neutral fashion the value of the reproduction and communication rights for musical works, sound recordings and performers' performances in a single proceeding.

2. Obligations and Powers to Streamline Proceedings

The tariff certification process creates significant uncertainty for all parties during the period between the filing of a proposed tariff and the certification of the tariff by the Board. During this time, rights holders are entitled to collect royalties, if any, in accordance with the terms of a previously certified tariff. Once a new tariff is certified, rights holders are entitled to collect the royalties specified in the new tariff for the period specified in that tariff. Given that the periods specified in the new tariffs often relate to years which have since past, users must set aside significant funds in anticipation of the royalties to be set by the Board. At the same time, rights-holders do not receive appropriate royalties in a timely manner.

As the digital economy grows, the many uses of copyright content and its just and efficient compensation will become increasingly important. In this context, the need for timely decisions will become greater.

In light of the above, the CRTC considers that amending the Copyright Act to provide the Board with additional procedural powers would provide incentives for parties to cooperate in meeting more expedient deadlines. The Board could be empowered to award costs and determine whether tariffs will be certified for the time period proposed, or some later date. Criteria could be established related to the application of those powers, including for example, the reasonableness of proposed tariffs, and the timely filing of evidence. In addition, establishing timelines by which the Board will certify a tariff would assist in reducing industry-wide uncertainty associated with delays in certification. Other tribunals, like the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, make no less difficult decisions under rigorous time limits without any negative impact on due process, fairness or quality of decision.
The CRTC understands that the Board is entrusted with an increasingly complex mandate which implies the assessment of numerous technological and economic issues. As a result, implementing these recommendations would necessitate appropriate funding for the Copyright Board to ensure that it has the resources necessary to fulfill its mandate within timelines that do not disadvantage the parties before it.

• The CRTC recommends that the Copyright Act be amended to streamline the tariff certification process of the Board. These amendments would include providing the Board with the power to determine the most appropriate effective date of a tariff and the power to award costs. In addition, establishing timelines by which the Board will certify a tariff would offer stakeholders a more expedient and certain outcome.

3. Copying for Private Use

A key issue in copyright reform is how to address widespread activities that most Canadians believe are quite legal, but are not because they infringe copyright. Digital technology has changed rapidly and profoundly how Canadians consume copyright protected material such as movies, music and video games.

The Copyright Act largely predates technological changes such as those that enable consumers to time-shift and format-shift near perfect digital copies of works. For example, transferring the contents of a CD onto other devices, in copyright terms, involves making a reproduction — an act that requires the authorization of the copyright owner. A levy created in 1997 to compensate copyright owners for the private copying of music enables consumers to legally copy music for personal, non-commercial use onto blank audio recording media. The proceeds from the levy are distributed to eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers of sound recordings.
This regime is now under pressure, given technological developments and consumer practices, and the uncertainty that has resulted from the application of private copying provisions in a manner that is not technologically neutral. In 2008 the Federal Court of Appeal decided that the levy does not apply to digital audio players such as the Apple iPod. With respect to time-shifting, since the introduction of the videocassette recorder over 25 years ago, Canadians have recorded programs for later use, thereby possibly infringing copyright. The CRTC believes that the Copyright Act should be amended to recognize the profound technological changes that have taken place and provide Canadians with a clear legal ability to time shift programs and make private copies of copyright works in certain circumstances.

There are different approaches to bring clarity and certainty to copyright law. One is to amend the fair dealing provision in the Act to be an illustrative rather than an exhaustive list of permitted exceptions to copyright, to allow consumers to make uses that are "fair." This approach would require the public to apply a series of factors laid down by the Supreme Court in a landmark 2004 decision interpreting fair dealing. However, this approach would not provide the clarity and certainty that is needed. Determining whether a use is "fair" is subjective and would require consumers to know and apply the six factors established by the Supreme Court. The result would be continued uncertainty, not clarity.
A better approach is to provide users with clear rights to do specified acts, while retaining a more general fair dealing exception.

The CRTC recommends that the Copyright Act should be changed to provide clearly defined exceptions, distinct from fair dealing, for consumers to:

• time-shift radio and television programs;
• format-shift copyright material they own from one device to another for private use; and,
• make copies of copyright material they own for private use.

Conclusion

The CRTC notes that this consultation on copyright reform takes place in the context of momentum in Government, industry, and civil society toward the launch of a "whole-of government" digital strategy. Copyright is a key instrument enabling the digital knowledge economy. For it to withstand the test of time, the Copyright Act should be reformed in a manner that defies a silo based approach — and includes considerations of related issues such as the extension of access to next generation networks, appropriate funding for the production and digitization of Canadian cultural content, and efforts to encourage research, development and innovation in the communications industries.
The CRTC appreciates this opportunity to contribute to the public consultation process by making recommendations in respect of issues that may have an impact on the sector under its regulatory authority.

Peter S. Grant’s Resource for Copyright Board Practitioners and Watchers

(mccarthy.ca)

I occasionally do book reviews when I come across or am given a review copy of something that is useful, interesting and makes a positive contribution to the IP literature – either in an academic or practical way, or preferably both. I avoid commenting on books that are disappointing, although that may become appropriate at some point.
 

Peter S. Grant has been a pioneer and a leader in Canadian communications law in the broadest sense of the term for many decades. Indeed, I took a course from him as an undergraduate in law (this was well after the invention of talking pictures but a long time before Netscape and Pandora) that introduced me in many ways to the wonderful but often bewildering world of copyright and communications law. One of his many enduring and endearing contributions was to show me and countless others how there are complex interconnection between various disciplines such as broadcasting, telecommunications, tax, competition, advertising, copyright and other areas of the law – not to mention the technology and business developments that keep courts and lawyers busy. These are not separate silos. For a long time, he and Bob Buchan organized the biennial Law Society of Upper Canada conferences that explored these connections, and I was among those who have been honoured to be a speaker in this series.

He has recently published the second edition (the first was in 2010) of his work entitled Communications Law and the Courts in Canada 2014.

The book focusses on judicial decisions related to the CRTC and the Copyright Board, as well as many relevant decisions involving constitutional, criminal law, freedom of expression, election law, etc. My comments are solely on coverage of copyright law and the Copyright Board.

His parameters of inclusion for copyright judicial decisions are:

• All judicial decision re copyright liability of radio and TV stations, cable and satellite distribution undertakings, telecommunications carriers, wireless companies and ISPS
• All judicial decisions regarding judicial review of Copyright Board
• “all copyright cases dealing with communications companies”
• Coverage from long, long ago to the beginning of 2014

Given these parameters, I was somewhat surprised not to find certain notable copyright judicial decisions, for example:

·         Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2012 FC 748 (CanLII), Plaintiff sought $22 million from CBC for inadvertent six time re-use  of some of her still photos from 9/11 in a segment of 18 seconds out of a 90 minute documentary for which she had originally been paid $2,500. The appeal was dealt with earlier this year.

·         Warman v. Fournier, 2012 FC 803 (CanLII), This was an action against a website owner and the National Post – involving fair dealing, copyright in titles, etc. The Defendants/appellants withdrew their appeals on the eve of the hearing. This case could just as easily have involved broadcasters as a newspaper and, in any event, there was definitely an “online” aspect to it.

·         Cinar Corporation v. Robinson, [2013] 3 SCR 1168, 2013 SCC 73  was a landmark decision from 2013 in the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the meaning of “substantial part” in the context of a television program

·         National Gallery of Canada v. Canadian Artists’ Representation, 2013 FCA 64 (CanLII) This concerned whether was as formerly the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal had jurisdiction over what appeared to be a very obvious case for the Copyright Board, but which did not go that route. This decision was subsequently reversed in 2014 by the SCC.

·         Robertson v. Thomson Corp., [2006] 2 SCR 363, 2006 SCC 43 (CanLII), Landmark copyright class action case in SCC involving reproduction in databases, involving compilations, collective works, etc. 

·         Compo Co. Ltd. v. Blue Crest Music et al., [1980] 1 SCR 357, 1979 CanLII 6 (SCC). This concerned the meaning of “make” in the context of a sound recording. Of interest to all intermediaries in the chain of broadcasting, distribution, publishing etc. 

·         CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13, which dealt with fair dealing by the library of the Law Society for its patrons in the context of faxes and photocopies, but which is a the “magna carta” in many respects of “users’ rights” generally and fair dealing in particular – and which could be cited in many situations involving “communications” companies. 

Perhaps these examples don’t fall literally within the parameter of “dealing with communications companies” which the book indicates includes “radio and television stations,, cable and satellite distribution undertakings, telecommunications carriers, wireless companies and internet providers, as well as the postal services”. But it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference anymore between broadcasters, newspapers, print publishers, and producers of films, sound recordings, etc.  Indeed, all of these types of activates are becoming increasingly converged and some companies seem to do most or all of them. So, as useful as this book may be, it should not be considered totally exhaustive with respect to every potentially relevant judicial decision involving Canadian copyright law and communications – considered in the widest sense. Moreover, given the paucity of Canadian copyright jurisprudence, every notable decision tends to get cited wherever possible. 

There is a brief discussion in §10-8 entitled “How Have the Agencies Faired in the Courts?” Mr. Grant states at the outset this brief discussion that the Board was “overruled” in its decisions concerning the definition of “audio recording medium” on two occasions. This is true as far as it goes, but it actually should go further because the FCA also  all but overruled itself regarding an earlier decision in which it did uphold the Board on the meaning of “audio recording medium”.  Mr. Grant then adds an editorial comment that these Federal Court of Appeal decisions “have created a significant and regrettable loophole in Part VIII of the Copyright Act”. Naturally, having made winning arguments in these two cases in the Federal Court of Appeal (See here and here) and notwithstanding the unusually outspoken views of the former Chair of the Copyright Board, Justice William Vancise, I would characterize the result rather differently.  But I would be the first to defend Mr. Grant’s right to make such editorial comments, having made the occasional editorial comment myself. That said, such comments do require some elaboration and he is perhaps a bit too circumspect and perhaps sympathetic overall to the Board in terms of some of its other reversals and corrections in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. With respect to “fair dealing”, while the Board’s decision in the Alberta case was indeed sent back for reconsideration, given the narrow way the appeal was framed and the way relief was sought,  it was also effectively and fundamentally overruled in its approach and even its fact finding regarding fair dealing in the educational context. 

Perhaps, in a future edition, Mr. Grant will include an explicit and reasonably detailed discussion of “standard of review’, although this is admittedly an elusive and even ineluctable “sempiternal” issue that could consume a whole volume in itself. Nonetheless, it is the inevitable starting point of any judicial review exercise.

The bulk of the book consists of concise but still useful and sometimes even rather detailed summaries of 569 cases that fit the stated parameters of the book. These are far better than most headnotes and quite useful in some cases as a departure point for further research on related cases or issues, for example the one dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in in the Province of Alberta case. (§55-556).

There is, of course, an alphabetical index  of decisions for those who already know what they are looking for.

Mr. Grant provides a useful topical index in §§70-2 to 70-4 of the various copyright decisions that he has catalogued and summarized. However, the index could use more detailed and comprehensive. For example, some important and even hot-button issues as “evidence” and “jurisdiction” or “retroactive” are not to be found.

This book, which is privately published by Mr. Grant’s firm, McCarthy Tétrault and available here, is going to be very useful and a potential time saver to anyone concerned with the work of the Copyright Board and the CRTC. As noted above, I’m not sure that it’s 100% comprehensive and exhaustive in what it purports to cover – but, with that caveat, its close enough to be a very good starting point for research that needs to be done by practitioners who work before the Copyright Board. Doubtless, the same would hold for the CRTC. About 30% of the book consists of statutory material, which is easily and freely available online – but it’s going to be handy at times to have this material in one place. There is a lot of “value added” and convenience that comes with this book. At $90, the book should pay for itself quickly for many practitioners.

The use of this book, in conjunction with the Board’s website and the “free” databases of the Federal Court of  Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada and Canlii.org could  save interested scholars and practitioners quite a lot of time and their clients a lot of money. Policy makers in the government and some assiduous academics will also find it to be a very useful and productive investment. Bedtime reading, however, it is not.  Still, I will look forward to the next update in a few years.

A very simple further step that the Copyright Board could easily provide in the meantime, which would be even easier now with use of this useful book and which is long overdue, would be the provision of links on its website to the judicial review decisions by the Federal Court of Appeal of the Board’s own decisions and any resulting decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, when the case gets that far. The Board already has a useful database of all its own decisions from 1990 onwards. With the help of Mr. Grant’s book and the “free” databases mentioned above, this very easy exercise should not require more than a few person days at most of time on the Board’s part and could be readily integrated into the Board’s existing website template and design. There are not that many of these decisions, but they are extremely important to copyright practitioners and scholars. This would save researchers considerable time and effort in the result. This would accomplish much to make the rather opaque state of jurisprudence on the Board’s corpus of decisions much more accessible. With the Board’s four full time lawyers and dozen or so other full time employees (not counting its GIC appointed members), hopefully this is something that we can expect sooner rather than later.

HPK

Another Netflix Canadian Close Encounter of the Regulatory Kind

 

Netflix, as is well known, is having an interesting time with Canadian federal regulation these days. At the CRTC, it is disputing that tribunal’s jurisdiction to regulate Netflix in any way, including the demanding of information. Netflix is also currently engaged in another less visible proceeding at another federal tribunal, namely the Copyright Board that, although less dramatic, is still very interesting and potentially important. On July 18, 2014, The Board released its decision in STATEMENT OF ROYALTIES TO BE COLLECTED FOR THE PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC OR THE COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC BY TELECOMMUNICATION, IN CANADA, OF MUSICAL WORKS. 

This Board tariff file goes back to 2006 when Netflix was heavily engaged in DVD rental and smartphones were something new and exciting.  In the meantime we have had several potentially relevant SCC cases on technological neutrality and fair dealing and new legislation from 2012 that arguably should have had a major impact on this case.

The whole technological landscape changed when Netflix launched streaming internet based video into Canada in September, 2010. Netflix was technically only an intervenor in the Board case. It is upset that the Board imposed a tariff on the one-month “free” trial membership that Netflix offers.  

Here is how Netflix is affected by the Board’s tariff:

“For a service that offers subscriptions to end-users: 1.7 per cent for the years 2007-2010 and 1.9 per cent for the years 2011-2013 of the amounts paid by subscribers. In the case of free trials, a minimum monthly fee of 6.8¢ for the years 2007- 2010 and 7.5¢ for the years 2011-2013 per free trial subscriber shall apply;”

Fair dealing for Netflix is clearly an issue. $0.068 per customer per month for free trials adds up over the years with as many millions of customers as Netflix has. Also unresolved and up in the air are issues around “downloads” and “making available right” – on the one hand, the Board says that SOCAN not entitled  but then the tariff refers to liability for downloads.

Netflix started a judicial review (in layperson’s terms, an “appeal”) proceeding on August 14, 2014. This will take about a year or more to resolve in the normal course of events. Here is the Notice of Application.  For reasons that are not immediately apparent, Netflix has named the Attorney General of Canada and the Copyright Board itself as respondents.

Quite apart from the legal issues, which are interesting enough to say the least, the whole process raises questions about timing and the role of the Copyright Board where our copyright oversight regulatory system moves inexplicably slowly but affects – inevitably retroactively – enormous and innovative industries that move at the speed of the internet. We have a tariff application here that started in 2006 at the dawning of the smartphone age and well before the age of tablets that was decided by the Board eight years later and long after internet on-demand movies had become widely available. With the almost inevitable judicial review we now see from Copyright Board decisions, this battle is still far from over.

This is another instance in which regulations concerning the procedures and timelines for Copyright Board hearings might have been helpful.

HPK

Convergence, Copyright and the CRTC

Once again this year, as was the case when the Supreme Court of Canada released its “pentalogy” of decisions on July 12m 2012, Canadian consumers, IP users and “public interest” advocates need to pinch themselves to make sure that they are not dreaming in Technicolor.

The CRTC has very surprisingly and very clearly rejected the proposed $3.4 billion Bell/Astral merger. Here’s the summary.  Here’s the decision.

BCE has become a superpower within the Canadian firmament, having huge and converged interests in just about all aspects of media (including news), entertainment, broadcasting, telecommunications, ISP, wireless  and even retailing.

Without commenting on BCE or this transaction in particular, it can  be the case from a purely copyright standpoint that this kind and quantity of convergence can end up being bad for consumers. And we all know that copyright is important these days.

This is because the naturally competition and even occasionally adversarial relationships that might have otherwise taken place between various parts of a corporate empire, if they were separately owned, may cease to take place if there is common ownership. Fuzzy and compromised thinking may be the result, with mixed or confused signals being sent out to regulators and consumers themselves.

The result can even be bad for the mega merged company itself. I suspect that SONY is an example of just such a result. As a hardware company, it was for a long time unbeatable in consumer and even some sectors of professional electronics. It made the best and most innovative gadgets in just about every category. But, then it decided to become an entertainment company too. The two don’t always mix. Entertainment companies virtually all believe that more copyright is always better. Consumer electronics companies tend to believe that less is more and better.

For example, at Canada’s Copyright Board, SONY had a big stake on both sides of the fence in the early days of the tape and CD levy. It stood to benefit from the revenues and was a major stakeholder in the CPCC. But, as a hardware and blank media manufacturer, it was an objector to the levies.  I suspect that SONY had some interesting internal discussions about levies and more recently about TPMs. On the latter front,  it found itself in the incredibly embarrassing position of having deployed its disastrous “rootkit” antipiracy malware embedded in sound recordings that destroyed or injured a lot of hardware that SONY would have made and sold to unsuspecting consumers.

Unlimited convergence may have had its day and that would probably be a very good thing. At least, for this day, it has met its match at the CRTC, and its new Chair, Jean-Pierre Blais pictured above.

HPK