The purpose of PIPA is to govern the means by which the private sector may handle personal information. as unconstitutional, the inaction of the Alberta provincial government following the decision made this juncture in privacy law particularly notable. Leading up to the November 15, 2014 deadline to amend the Act and account for its shortcomings, it was highly likely that Alberta’s private sector would revert to being governed by the Federal-level legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act (PIPEDA). Though PIPA and PIPEDA are substantially similar, there are two notable considerations that would have impacted Albertans had PIPA ceased to exist. First, the province would have had no mandatory breach notification laws, and second, the personal information of employees of provincially-regulated organizations in Alberta would have been statutorily unprotected.


PIPA violates s. 2(b) of the Charter

During a lawful strike that persisted for about ten months, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 401, videotaped and photographed individuals who crossed the picket line. In the area surrounding the picket line, the Union had placed signs that informed the public that images of persons crossing the picket line may be recorded and reproduced on the Union’s website, and in leaflets.

Several individuals who crossed the picket line and whose images were captured filed complaints with the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, who in turn appointed an adjudicator to determine whether the Union had contravened PIPA. The complainants expressed concern that their personal information had been collected and disseminated by the Union without their consent in violation of the Act. When the Adjudicator found the Union’s collection, use and disclosure of information was not authorized under PIPA, the Union applied for judicial review of the legislation. On judicial review, PIPA was found to violate the Union’s rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and . The Court of Appeal declared PIPA unconstitutional as an infringement of the Union’s s. 2(b) right to freedom of expression.

When the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, it was substantially dismissed by a unanimous Court. The Court held that personal information collected by the Union was done so in the climate of an open political demonstration where it was readily and publicly observable. Those who crossed the picket line had a reasonable expectation that their images could be captured and disseminated by others, such as journalists. The Court further found that the “personal information” collected, used, and disseminated by the Union was “limited to images of individuals crossing a picketline and did not include intimate biographical details”. Insofar as PIPA restricted the Union’s collection and disclosure of personal information for a legitimate labour relations issue, the Court held that the Act breached s. 2(b) of the Charter, and the infringement was not justified under s. 1.


The Government of Alberta’s inaction

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision rendering PIPA invalid, the Government of Alberta had a 12-month deadline to bring the Act into compliance with the Charter. That quickly approaching deadline has been met with subsequent inaction by the government, though not due to delay on the part of the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. On December 23, 2013, following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Alberta Commissioner . The proposed amendments bring the Act into compliance with the Charter, while preserving the balanced and principled basis of the Act. The letter was met with silence.

In mid-September, the until November 17, 2014, two days after amendments to PIPA must be passed.

On September 23, 2014, the Alberta Commissioner wrote . At that time, the Premier announced that he would be seeking an extension of the Declaration of Invalidity from the Supreme Court, and a motion requesting this was filed by the Attorney General of Alberta on October 1, 2014. Had the extension not been granted by the Supreme Court, Alberta would have reverted to being governed by the federal private sector privacy act, PIPEDA. In early November, the Supreme Court granted a six-month extension to bring PIPA in line with the Charter.


Bill 3: The Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2014

Following the extension, the Government of Alberta rapidly introduced a bill with proposed amendments to PIPA. The Bill prescribed a very narrow set of amendments that had been previously proposed by the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner in December 2013. Under , a trade union (but no other organization) may collect, use, or disclose personal information about an individual without consent, for the purpose of informing or persuading the public about a matter of significant public interest or importance that relates to a labour dispute involving the union, provided that it is both reasonably necessary to collect, use or disclose personal information for that purpose, and reasonable to do so without consent for that purpose, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the nature and sensitivity of the information.

The narrow amendments reflect the directive received by the Government of Alberta from the Supreme Court last year. Looking forward, it will be interesting to keep watch over how freedom of expression in matters of “significant public interest” in labour disputes are balanced against a consent in the use, collection and disclosure of personal information.


Faye Alipour is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and is enrolled in Osgoode's Intellectual Property Law & Technology Intensive Program.  As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

The post Much Ado about Privacy? How the Alberta Government's Inaction on PIPA Threatened the Act appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Although I have discussed the various concerns raised by the highly controversial ACTA and the increasingly intrusive digital copyright enforcement agenda, I have yet to explore what a combination of these initiatives would mean for U.S. individuals, technology developers, and small and mid-sized firms. This Essay picks up that task by exploring whether—and if so, why—these entities should be concerned about this half-cooked alphabet soup.

Part II of this Essay identifies six different concerns and challenges ACTA poses to U.S. consumers, technology developers, and small and mid-sized firms. Part III explores the ongoing negotiation of TPP. Although the secretive and dynamic nature of the TPP negotiations has prevented this Essay from providing a detailed analysis of the emerging agreement, this Part explains why TPP is likely to be more dangerous than ACTA from a public interest standpoint. Part IV concludes by highlighting the challenges recently created by SOPA and PIPA—two pieces of legislation that are as problematic as, if not more problematic than, ACTA and TPP.

Featured here is the first part of a paper by , Kern Family Chair in Intellectual Property Law and Founding Director of the Intellectual Property Law Center at Drake University Law School. The paper was originally published in the Drake Law Review Discourse. Born and raised in Hong Kong, Professor Yu is a leading expert in international intellectual property and communications law. He also writes and lectures extensively on international trade, international and comparative law, and the transition of the legal systems in China and Hong Kong. The full article can be found .

The post The Alphabet Soup of Transborder Intellectual Property Enforcement appeared first on IPOsgoode.

While each of the two bills were introduced separately— SOPA on October 26, 2011 and PIPA on May 12, 2011— it was their combined effect with respect to copyright and trademark protection within the US that has come to be touted as stifling much more than just online piracy. Critics have been vocal about the threat of the bills, saying that the proposed legislative changes meant to curb infringement are , citing that freedom of expression and are being harmed in the process.

Supporters of the bills, on the other hand, have said that the , pointedly emphasizing that the purpose of the bills was to target foreign websites that were ‘primarily engaging’ in illegal activity, also noting that those websites which were conducting their businesses legally would not be subject to the enforcement legislation introduced in the bills. have been adamant of their support of SOPA. Citing SOPA to be a ‘proactive measure,’ these organizations have insisted that the measures introduced in the bill are designed to protect both intangible rights, and the ‘real jobs’ linked to these rights. In their view, it was SOPA’s protection of “ the industry’s ability to foster creativity, provide opportunities, and ensure good jobs,” that was worthy of support and laudability.

The between the two sides seem to revolve chiefly around the degree of protection deemed necessary, the purported effects of allowing that protection to be governmentally mandated, and the liability of users and hosts of the infringing content. The that ISPs block content that directed, linked to, or facilitated infringement in offshore domains did not sit well with Google, Wikipedia and Reddit (among others), i.e. websites built on the linking and exchange of information. The concern here was more than just policy-related, as the over one or a few links deemed ‘rogue’ might be seen as too prohibitive for small buisnesses. However, proponents of the bills are quick to point out that their main aim has always been to , perhaps suggesting that the harsh language of the legislation was in proportion to the magnitude of the pirating that was to be combated, and that the vehement public opposition to the bills might actually be . At the same time however, the , because of their potential to limit innovation and promote censorship, while maintaining that US IP law does need an overhaul with respect to anti-piracy measures, sent an undeniably powerful message to SOPA’s proponents. So also did its condemnation by Sir Tim Berns-Lee, one of the creators of the World Wide Web, whose main objection was the of his invention.

While the media predominantly provided polarized coverage on the issue, several alternative and noteworthy viewpoints on the matter provide insightful analyses of the key issues at play. While the protests and debates led to the of both bills on January 20, 2012, the questions raised by both sides have yet to find a satisfactory resolution. Lamar Smith, the Republican Senator who originally introduced SOPA into Congress, and that the bill was intended to protect all forms of intellectual property in the US, and not merely online piracy. that the ‘illegal theft’ of tangibles was just as relevant to SOPA’s provisions, and that the battle was more than just between ‘the entertainment industry and high-tech companies.’

Another major voice in the pro-SOPA camp has been that of Floyd Abrams, whose detailed outlined the constitutionality of the legislation. The letter begins by stressing that while the protection of copyrightable material has been an essential aim of US law, the country’s Constitution also aims at a balance between “protections for speakers and creators, in a context, while stimulating future creativity.” Professor Abrams is clear however, that while free speech must be given importance, this right cannot exist in a digital vacuum when it comes to the Internet. and by extension, of the consequences of its infringement.

Danah boyd’s comparison of two aspects of internet piracy— as a — also highlighted the confusion that seemed embedded in the debate from the start; whether SOPA and PIPA were actually preventing piracy, or stifling the participatory culture of the Internet. Further, of whether SOPA, if enacted, could actually help promote the US economy speaks to the core function of US copyright legislation— the incentivization of the production of creative works. Sanchez ultimately asks for a ‘real and quantifiable link’ between the two, claiming that until such a connection is found, strong legislation such as SOPA that ‘reports the death of the industry’ might not be in anyone’s best interest.

Finally, Professor Jason Mazzone contends that SOPA’s passage would only have increased a trend that began long before the debate over the bill— that of ‘,’ where copyright owners use contractual provisions to extend their rights over areas where legislation does not give them access. Mazzone contends that SOPA, with its emphasis on harsher enforcement, could have given copyright owners the freedom to ‘disrupt sites that do not infringe a copyright, interfere with fair uses of copyrighted works, and take other steps that evade the limits that the Copyright Act...’ something that opponents were very keen to avoid right from the start.

Senator Smith has already his intention push for SOPA’s passage in February 2012, when the next round of talks on the bill is to resume. There have been amendments made to the latest version, such as the removal of the provision that would have required service providers to block infringing websites from subscribers through court orders. Skepticism is still rife however, with critics emphasizing that simply tinkering around with the edges is unacceptable. Whether SOPA 2.0 will survive its troubled birth is an issue that will no doubt remain on many minds in the days to come.

Mekhala Chaubal is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post On Suspending SOPA and Piping PIPA Down appeared first on IPOsgoode.

It was a big day in the copyright enforcement world today as US federal authorities moved to shut down website Megaupload. The crackdown included charges against seven people as well as the seizure of over 50 million dollars in assets.  As the internet's most popular "file locker" services, Megaupload boasted over 50 million daily visitors and accounted for 4% of all internet traffic last year. We are following the story and .

The post Developing: Megaupload Take Down and Attacks by Anonymous appeared first on IPOsgoode.