Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and 2L JD candidate��at Osgoode Hall Law School.

DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) strikes and disputes are often thought about in the context of music and video, however, it can be for any copyrightable content. , an entire blog website of a crypto critic was consequently removed due to multiple DMCA strikes. However, these were fraudulent claims that utilized a back-dating technique to fake plagiarism.

Image Source:

Mike Burgersburg published multiple articles critical of cryptos on his blog hosted on . Then, a company called UNFT News copied those articles and published them on their website but post-dated them. So, it appeared that Bursgerburg had plagiarised their work. UNFT News then issued multiple DMCA claims against Bursgerburg using DMCA.com. Given it did this for multiple articles he was subject to Substack’s and missed the deadline to refute the claims. Therefore, he temporarily lost his blog by July 15, 2022. The blog was later reinstated and Burgersburg was able to respond to the claims . Yet the situation highlights the major flaws in the DMCA system.

DMCA perjury

The issue with the current format of DMCA is that it acts as a shield for larger hosting sites and a sword from any person regardless of the validity of their claim. Although submitting a false DMCA claim leaves someone open to perjury, it seems to rarely be enforced. Currently, there is mass abuse of the DMCA system.

is a project launched by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University that was specifically designed to examine this problem. , they looked at DMCA notices provided to Google for articles and found that June 2019 and January 2022 there were 33,988 deliberate fraudulent attempts to misuse DMCA. 99.2% of these fraudulent attempts were unsuccessful, but there were still 300 successful fraudulent takedowns. Although Google's system is very good at identifying these fraudulent DMCA notices, just by the sheer number of attempts they have an impact on free speech on the internet. Additionally, there was no mention of any repercussions for the 99.2% of fraudulent DMCA notices.

Why DMCA abuse may have become more prevalent

It appears there are two motivations and scales of fraudulent DMCA claims. 1) Groups acting as large-scale . Lumen found that almost all the fraudulent DMCA notices examined were sent for articles relating to criminal allegations against . 2) DMCA claims were a small-scale targeted attack on a specific blog, like Burgersburg’s blog.

For the latter claims, there may be ignorance about the consequences and the perceived minimal risk due to the lack of enforcement that has stimulated that form of abuse in the system. However, there is probably more that can be said about the impact of perceived online anonymity and the remote nature of the internet that leads to people perjuring through false DMCA strikes. Currently, ��DMCA’s penalties of damages and lawyers’ fees do not seem to be a strong deterrent to fraudulent claims. Many people are like Burgersburg, they get these DMCA strikes and fight to get their content back up. But those that commit perjury through the DMCA notice rarely face any consequences.

The post Weaponizing DMCA’s: How Copyright Systems are Being Abused to Restrict Speech appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Tianchu Gao is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This article is part of a series covering the 5th Annual IP Data & Research Conference, hosted by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Session III from the focused on IP in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The economic impact of Covid is not as bad as expected, partly because of the prosperous IP industry in the digital world. The pandemic, in effect, accelerated the development of IP-related entrepreneurial activities. The presentations in this session look at the power of IP in economic and social growth.

In the first presentation, Carolina Arias Burgos, an economist at , discussed trademark filing as a leading indicator of the state of the European economy. Data shows that EU trademark filings correspond well with other economic indicators such as employment, domestic demand, GDP, and the overall attitude of investors toward a particular market (sentiment/confidence indicator). Domestic demand, confidence indicator for the retail sector, and Gross Capital Formation have cyclical correspondence to EU trademark filings. The values of these indicators are closely interrelated, shaped by their past values and the current and past values of other indicators (Multivariate VAR models).�� Burgos is still working on the model to include more variables and restrictions in VAR. It will hopefully generate more accurate forecasts in the future.

The second presentation examined and ‘s study taking a textual approach to analyzing trademark activity during the pandemic. They extracted the goods and services statements from around 300,000 trademark applications between 2010 and 2021, and the study looks at the topics and word meanings of these applications. Their research shows that pandemic-era trademark activities fundamentally changed in the application text context. These changes vary based on Nice class and application country origin.

and , from (ICTC), focused their presentation on the interaction between foreign direct investment (FDI) and IP in Canada. Their research employed a thematic analysis / grounded theory approach and 43 semi-structured interviews. It finds that various factors attract FDI; they include market size, talent, private investment, exit planning, government regulations, financing and innovation infrastructure, etc. Their research also identifies the aspects that can strengthen the impact of FDI on Canadian innovation, such as the VC/PE ecosystem, tax planning, procurement, IP literacy, and access.

, , and presented the they developed that educates students on IP in applied research settings. A consultation with 50 respondents from Ontario colleges undertaken early in the project indicated that 90% of them had little IP knowledge. In response to the virtual learning strategy of eCampus Ontario, they developed this online program to raise IP literacy in the context of applied research in colleges. It is an interactive module that turned out to be very effective in educating the participants.

Data shows that IP-related industries continued to prosper during the Covid-19 pandemic. Researchers are working on studies that identify and explain its development.

The post IP in a Digital World & Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Notes from the 5th Annual IP Data & Research Conference appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As I wrote at the time of the last , the Government of Canada has been working on a strategy to position the country to benefit from the so-called "digital future" since May 2010. Four years and three Industry Ministers later, this strategy has not yet been formally announced. Now, with the , at the helm of the Industry portfolio, the broad contours of this plan appear to be becoming clear. At the time of the , then-Industry Minister Tony Clement that ‘improving Canada’s digital advantage’ would foster “a more prosperous and successful Canada [that] will ensure a better quality of life for all Canadians.”

In order to do so, Canada’s Digital Economy Strategy – or an ‘iCanada’ framework – should address four intersecting areas: infrastructure, intellectual property, incentives, and interface. These policy areas contribute to economic growth and human development by affording individuals, communities, and companies to benefit from opportunities associated with digital innovations.��

Infrastructure

The greatest number of Canadians will only succeed in digital environments if they have access to necessary technological and human resources. In the evolving ‘digital age’, access to broadband and network communication technologies will be essential. An , where Canadians living outside of city-centres or their suburbs are often unable to join the ‘information superhighway’ to the same extent—and with the same speeds—as those based in more urban areas.

seeks to address this issue by offering a five-year, $305 million fund “to extend and enhance broadband Internet service for Canadians in rural and Northern communities” (p.8). (a technology analyst and consultant who co-organizes the annual ) states that this is an encouraging sign. However, the specifics of this fund will need to be clarified. Furthermore, the download speed target of 5mbps by 2019 is unambitious when compared to other jurisdictions and will not immediately address the situation. Professor (the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law) points out that while . With the fast-changing nature of digital technologies, in five years' time, this goal will be outdated. It is my opinion that the Government of Canada needs to reassess this goal to account for current needs and future realities.

Another barrier to technological adoption is cost. Canadians located in areas where high-speed broadband is available are faced with relatively high costs to access these services. A 2013 report from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) , they remain higher than prices in the United Kingdom, Australia, France, and Japan. For many lower-income Canadians, these prices are prohibitive. Budget 2014 renews the ‘Computers for Schools' program with $36 million over four years (p. 77). This is a welcome step, which recognizes that “a vibrant economy requires that students have access to the equipment they need to acquire the skills that will prepare them to fully participate in the digital economy” (p. 77). Unfortunately, the Computers for Schools program does not address the issue of what happens once students leave the classroom. As Mr. Goldberg has , “we should be looking at making PCs and computers part of our social safety net in Canada, re-targeting subsidies based on financial need, not based [solely] on geography”.

The technological infrastructure necessary for a Digital Economy Strategy should also enhance the human and social capacities required for leveraging digital technologies. Although a provincial responsibility, education will be key moving forward. Budget 2014 offers “more than $1.8 billion in new funding committed to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support research infrastructure at universities, colleges, research hospitals and other not-for-profit research institutions across Canada” (p. 75). Part of this fund will go towards the country’s Granting Councils, which provide funding to researchers, scholars, and students in post-secondary institutions. For example, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has . These types of funding programs will allow scholars and graduate students to conduct necessary research for understanding and extending Canada’s place in the digital realm. (Disclosure: the author holds a Doctoral Fellowship with the SSHRC).

Intellectual Property

The ‘basic’ research carried out in public institutions, and funded by the public purse, should contribute to the public good. Intellectual property (IP) created in public institutions can be used to link this research and spur research & development (R&D). Budget 2014 proposes $3 million in funding (over three years) to fund an 'Open Data Institute' (p. 122). This Open Data Institute “will play a role in aggregating large datasets, informing the development of interoperability standards, and catalyzing the development and commercialization of new data-driven apps” (p. 123). This project will help provide opportunities to make creative applications out of valuable information and knowledge.

These goods and services are valuable in domestic and global contexts. As Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz , “intellectual property regimes are a key component of innovation policy frameworks and the ongoing evolution of a globalized knowledge-based economy” (pp. 1696-1699). This globalized framework necessitates ensuring that Canada’s IP regime adheres to international standards while maintaining policy spaces for meeting domestic objectives.

In , (a senior partner at McCarthy Tétrault and an adjunct faculty member of IPOsgoode) points out where Budget 2014 proposes to align Canadian IP law with international treaties and trade agreements. In particular, the Budget “proposes to modernize Canada’s intellectual property framework by ratifying or acceding to the following widely recognized international treaties: the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, the Nice Agreement, the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement” (p. 108). Coupled with the recent , Budget 2014 demonstrates that Government IP policy has largely been set.

Incentives

Intellectual property protections are but one way of incentivizing entrepreneurship, growth, and development. Historically, ��incentivizing innovation. In , and , from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington, D.C., outline a number of other incentives that governments are using to encourage existing companies to become more innovative as well as to attract foreign investment, and to encourage foreign companies to operate within their jurisdictions (p. 171). These measures include stable R&D tax credits designed to spur creative activities and inventive research and development. For example, so-called 'patent boxes' allow income derived from the sale of patented products and technologies to be taxed at a lower rate than other income (p. 172). As well, preferential tax treatment can be given to ‘young’ or ‘start-up’ companies (p. 173) and governments can remove complex bureaucratic processes for starting new companies (p. 176), which may otherwise deter creative endeavours. So-called government red-tape is for companies attempting to work across a number of provinces. The Government of Canada should review tax policies with these objectives in mind while also ensuring that such reforms contribute to general, ‘middle class’ economic opportunities by maintaining social and political objectives.

Interface

A Canadian Digital Economy Strategy should recognize that the federal government cannot be the sole driver of the country’s digital future. Instead, a proper combination of infrastructure, IP, and incentives can empower Canadians to capitalize upon emerging opportunities. Interface and interaction between the provinces, municipalities, communities, industry, and academia are essential for this to occur. This type of helps bring theory into practice in order to capitalize on Canada's research strengths. ��A from the University of Toronto’s highlights how linkages between industry and universities help create ‘regional innovation systems’ or ‘clusters’, which contribute to regional economic growth through knowledge transfer (p. 5). These ‘clusters’ capitalize upon the intersecting interests and expertise of researchers, practitioners, and entrepreneurs to generate creative and innovative outcomes. Ryerson University’s , the , and the network are examples of this type of interface across sectors that often work in isolation. The federal should continue to be supported in order to promote cross-country linkages and opportunities.

The fact that it has taken some four years for the Government of Canada to craft a Digital Economy Strategy demonstrates the complexity of the task at hand. However, a close reading of Budget 2014 shows that the release of such a strategy might be drawing nearer. In order to capitalize on current conditions and emerging opportunities, an ‘iCanada’ strategy that address infrastructure, intellectual property, incentives, and interface issues will help position the country and Canadians to benefit and thrive in the coming years.

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor, a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at 91��ɫ, and a Nathanson Graduate Fellow at the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post iCanada: Budget 2014 and the Shape of a Digital Economy Strategy appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As the Government of Canada has , "new business models and new market strategies will be needed if the Canadian digital media sector is to succeed in the global digital economy. " For example, "Over-the-top" service providers, such as��Netflix, as well as an array of companies offering on-demand or��à la carte��options, notably Apple Inc. via��iTunes, are��growing in popularity, ,��and demonstrating the shifting nature of the contemporary television landscape in Canada and across the world.

Due to these changes in how Canadians view television content, the country’s television regulator is seeking advice from the Canadian public to determine if and how television regulations must change.��For the CRTC, “making the right choices about how we shape Canadian television requires a complete and in-depth understanding of the Canadian television viewing experience.”

The regulator has, therefore,��asked Canadians to reflect��on the their habits and offer advice on three areas: “Programming: What do you think about what’s on television?;��Technology: What do you think about how you receive television programming?; and a so-called��Viewer Toolkit: Do you have enough information to make informed choices and seek solutions if you’re not satisfied?”

A common area of concern for many Canadian television viewers sits at the convergence of these first two topics: the relationship between programming — often of foreign content — and emerging technologies. Canadian consumers are often irritated to find that the content they wish to watch online is unavailable to them because of their geographic location.

Due to the nature and complexity of content licensing agreements, many popular programs are "" for viewers based in Canada or are otherwise unavailable to Canadian-based service providers. The frustrations surrounding Netflix’s��2010 entrance��into the Canadian market epitomize this. At the time, many Canadians were irritated by Netflix Canada’s relatively��limited selection��when compared to the service as offered in the United States. These sentiments continue today; have been created to track the differences between the Canadian and American services.

Geo-blocking and the unavailability of foreign content are distinct but related issues for Canadian viewers as well as service providers.��Geo-blocking��is a technological protection measure, allowing rights-holders to determine who can view content based upon the geographic location of a user’s Internet Protocol address. Rights-holders employ this technology in order to recreate traditional, geographically-based broadcast boundaries in the online environment. In , digital media consultant Alan Sawyer��argues: “since this is consistent with the realities of the physical world, it's a logical approach for broadcasters to take and makes a sensible foundation for enforcing territorial licensing agreements – and it preserves the effectiveness of the existing ad-supported model and helps broadcasters avoid disintermediation.” Foreign websites restrict access to the content that they host based on the territorial markets that they are attempting to serve and generate revenue from.

Territorial licensing agreements also determine what content Canadian websites and services can offer to their markets. Much of the television content offered by Canadian service providers as well as foreign companies operating in the country is produced internationally, primarily in the United States. Service providers in Canada must therefore negotiate����with particular rights holders in order to deliver this content to Canadian audiences. In certain cases, popular foreign programming is often unavailable to Canadian viewers.

The CRTC is not directly involved with what content service providers license from rights-holders. So while many Canadians may wish to discuss this topic during the CRTC’s��Conversation, the regulators hands may be tied in terms of addressing the problem.

Instead of attempting to solve the business model challenges of Canadian service providers, better results might be obtained if the regulator focuses on ensuring that Canadian content continues to be produced and delivered to Canadians via traditional and emerging media. As more and more content migrates to online platforms, the CRTC will need to explore whether or not Internet-based content providers need to be regulated so that they contribute to the creation of domestically produced content.

[Note: As part of the #TalkTV proceedings, (a non-partisan, student-run initiative of the 91��ɫ & Ryerson Joint , Politics & Policy stream), is hosting a ‘Flash Conference’ on December 4, 2013. More information is available .]

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor, a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at 91��ɫ, and a Nathanson Graduate Fellow at the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Canadians #TalkTV: The Question Surrounding Digital Content Licensing appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The court found that the scanning of over 20 million books and the provision of free snippets of the digitized copies over the Internet falls within the fair use exception provided in . This decision, which the , signals the court's endorsement of Google's practices, and is a further indication of American courts' favourable view toward the role of the Internet and digital distribution.

The Google Library Project

In 2004, Google announced a program called the , a part of its digital books project which involved a collaboration with a number of public libraries and prominent American universities in an effort to digitize the institutions' significant holdings. The project involved the use of optical character recognition, a technology that generates machine-readable electronic copies of the physical books.

Physical copies of books are scanned and placed in an index, which allows users to perform full-text searches in order to identify works relevant to their interests. After performing a search, a reader can access up to three “snippets” of text from a work containing the search terms. These snippets can change depending on the search terms, meaning it is possible (although impractical) to access an entire text by performing a large number of different searches.

A consortium of participating universities, involved in what is known as the (HDL), were also provided with digital copies of their scanned works, and access to a full-text searchable database. The individual universities can download full copies of works contained in their collections, but can gain only limited access to works contained in the collections of other institutions.

Google and the affiliated universities sought no permission from rights-holders before beginning the project. As a result of these activities, the Authors Guild of America and several publishers initiated separate class actions against both Google and the HDL universities.

In 2012, that the activities of universities and libraries involved in the HDL fell within the doctrine of fair use, and therefore the reproductions for use in databases and site-specific digital access to library holdings were not infringements of any rights held by the plaintiffs. This decision by the Authors Guild, and the judgement has not yet been released.

The Google case, however, continued. The commercial status of Google coupled with its decision to make the snippets widely available to the public made its claim of fair use less likely to succeed.

Class Action Litigation as an Alternative to Blanket Licensing

The American copyright system, administered by collective societies such a the , operates under a permission-based licensing process. This contrasts with the practice in Canada, which depends on blanket licensing agreements with collective societies such as , where fees are collected first, and then royalties are distributed among members of the collective according to subsequent audits of practices which fall within the terms of a licence or tariff.

In 2008, Google and the Authors Guild entered into an . This agreement was was in a decision also authored by Judge Chin, then of the District Court of NY on the grounds that it was not fair, adequate and reasonable. Through this class action settlement, Google attempted to lower the transactional costs attributed to permissions-based licensing and to avoid liability for its digitization of orphan works (works for which the author cannot be located, and therefore for which no permission can be obtained). While Google would be able to continue its digitization project, the Authors Guild would receive royalties over both works in its own repertoire and those works for which no author could be located.

As noted in the , over 500 submissions were filed by interested third parties in response to the settlement, most objecting the to arrangement. Judge Chin noted the inadequacy of class notice and representation and antitrust concerns. Amazon and Microsoft, Google's main competitors, arguing that the settlement infringed constitutional authority over copyright law, and that the agreement concerning orphan works resulted in an involuntary transfer of copyright in violation of US copyright law. In addition, were the settlement allowed to proceed, Microsoft and Amazon would have had to obtain permission from their main competitor in order to publish a significant number of unclaimed works.

With the settlement rejected and an application to the Second Circuit for certiorari of the class certification , the case proceeded on a consideration of the merits of Google's fair use defence.

Fair Use – The Benefits of Google's Project

The trial was a major success for Google, as the court rendered summary judgement in its favour on the grounds that all of Google's activities fell within the fair use exception contained at .

The court found that the Library Project provided numerous and significant benefits. Among the benefits mentioned by the court were:

• the increased efficiency in scholarly research;
• the promotion of a type of research known as data mining or text mining, in which large amounts of textual data is analyzed in order to draw conclusions about “word frequencies, syntactic patterns, and thematic markers”;
• the increased access the project provided to under-served communities, including people with visual impairments;
• the preservation and promotion of old and out-of-print books; and
• the promotion and resulting benefit to authors and publishers, as page containing the snippet included links to sellers of the book and libraries which contain the book in their collection.

Fair use, like , is an equitable doctrine designed to promote the development of arts and sciences. As a result, the substantial benefits provided by the project significantly influenced the finding of fair use.

Fair Use - Analysis on the Facts

The court found that Google's use of the protected works is highly transformative. Transformation, a concept not recognized under Canadian law, is a significant element of consideration under the US doctrine of fair use (although not “absolutely necessary”, according to a by the US Supreme Court on fair use).

The transformative character of the Google Library Project significantly militated towards a finding of fair use. In considering the purpose and character of the use, the first statutorily mandated consideration under the fair use analysis, the court found that Google Books does not “supersede or supplant” books because it is “not a tool to be used to read books.” The transformative character of the use acts as a counterweight to the commercial character of Google's operations – a factor that can tilt the balance against fair use.

The nature of the works in question also militated in favour of fair use. Unlike in Canada, US copyright law recognizes that it is in respect of fictional works in comparison with works of non-fiction. The vast majority of books digitized in the course of the Library Project were non-fiction. In another stark contrast to Canadian law, the fact that the books were published also weighed in favour of fair use. Unpublished works lead to a narrower scope of fair use in the American approach. In , the SCC recognized that the unpublished status of works can render a dealing more fair, thus increasing the scope of the doctrine where works are not publicly available.

The amount of the work copied was the sole factor which weighed against a finding of fair use. Google digitized entire works as part of its Library Project although, crucially, the amount of text accessible to a user in response to a search was limited to snippets of text, rather than complete access to the full text.

The effect of the use on the potential for the market also weighed in favour of fair use. The court found that, far from undermining the market for works, the Library Project enhanced sales of books by bringing rare or obscure titles to the attention of readers. Snippets of text were accompanied by links to libraries or websites where authorized copies of the works could be obtained by readers who wished to continue their research. While the analysis of this factor figures more prominently in US jurisprudence than in Canada, the reasoning in the decision resembles that in , a recent SCC decision in which the Court found that the provision of short excerpts from songs as part of a preview function on an online marketplace constituted fair dealing for the purposes of research. In SOCAN, the Court found that the dealing promoted, rather than undermined, the market for the sound recordings (for the IPilogue's coverage of the decision, click ).

While US fair use differs in many significant respects from Canadian fair dealing, the case is highly significant for Canadian copyright practice. Like many of the decisions rendered by the SCC in 2012's copyright Pentology, the American court's stance is pro-technology, favouring new forms of digital distribution over traditional approaches to rights-management which favour owners and authors. Many other aspects of Google's project would also help a such a project qualify for fair dealing in Canada, notably the manner in which the project increases the dissemination of rare texts, promotes the sale of protected works, and limits the amount of a book available to users. Nevertheless, as fair dealing - like fair use - is heavily dependent on the specific facts of a case, it remains hard to accurately predict how a similar case would fare in Canada.

David Bowden is an IPilogue Editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Google's Big Score: District Court Says Book Digitization Project is Fair Use appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Estate planning is something most people generally think about��as little as possible. Physical assets are often unbequeathed, and sometimes require complex and extensive litigation to determine who inherits what. Many of us plan even less for what will happen to our digital assets.��Some commentators have suggested dealing with digital inheritance simply by��. However this may run afoul of many end user agreements and terms of use, which��. Many other people will make no estate plans at all, leaving these accounts to go dark, or require��. Some technology companies, however, are now developing services and policies to deal with this very issue.

Service Provider Policies

In early April, ��a service to help users decide what will happen to their digital assets when they die. Named the "Inactive Account Manager," the service allows users to name a beneficiary for their accounts, or have their account data deleted. The service is triggered upon an account becoming inactive for a period of time defined by the user, who will also receive a notification before the period lapses. The announcement on Google's policy blog suggests the purpose is to plan for one's "digital afterlife," and to protect the privacy and security of a user's information when they die. This follows the implementation of��similar policies by both��and��.

Twitter and Facebook's systems operate through the reporting of deceased users.��Facebook allows for��or removal of a deceased individual's account, while Twitter these accounts.�� Neither service allows for the accounts to be passed on to surviving friends or family; this is where Google's service stands out. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, Google implicitly acknowledges the value in these��digital��assets, and provides for the ability to transfer those assets of value to others. This new feature covers accounts for Google's social media services like Google+ Profiles, Picasa Albums and YouTube, and can also apply to Google Drive��cloud storage and Gmail email accounts.

Discussion

From a broader perspective, this move by Google suggests that many online accounts are not merely for users to consume services, but these accounts develop into actual assets unto themselves. As these various online assets continue to be developed and increase in value, ownership and division of these assets may present serious legal questions. As Google's new service is enabling the inheritance of digital assets (thereby implicitly recognizing the value in them), a number of questions are raised about novel forms of property and what is included in the bundle of rights associated with them. There has been much discussion about who owns the data created in online services, but what about access to those accounts?��Are social media accounts property? If so, who owns access to them? Are the accounts or access to them alienable, and if so in what circumstances? What about extending recognition of these accounts or access to them as property to other areas of law?��If these digital assets represent significant value, could they also be subject to matrimonial property division, or��other��claims of unjust enrichment? These will all be questions that are likely to be answered in the coming years.

Some��commentators have suggested that��, develop laws governing inheritance of digital assets, and provisions to avoid executors from committing crimes by using log-in credentials left to them.�� This issue, however, has yet to��receive��much attention in Canada, and it seems that politicians have not yet been urged to address it. Only time will tell if governments will step in to legislate inheritance of digital assets as they have done with physical assets, or if they will leave it to a patchwork of inconsistent policies enacted on the whim of individual service providers.

Alex Buonassisi is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Thompson Rivers University.

The post Who Inherits Your Likes? appeared first on IPOsgoode.