So does that mean you can give me your Netflix password? Or the Toronto Star's entry words? Or any other online publication that relies on subscriptions to stay in business?

As a guy who spent many, many years writing for a living, this makes me profoundly uncomfortable, with no way to protect my work. That can't be right (or in this case, write.)

This is a bad precedent that may well lead to some publishers potentially going out of business if it holds. 

And while we're on the subject, what did you say your Netflix password was? Just asking for a friend. 

So how are you supposed to protect your proprietary content without going out of business?

Here's the full text of Michael Geist's analysis of the decision, which confirms RadioAaron's view of the situation. BTW RA, does not your frequent use of archive.ph to circumvent paywalls also make you part of the problem?

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/06/huge-win-for-copyright-user-rights-in-canada-federal-court-rules-digital-lock-rules-do-not-trump-fair-dealing/

Like what?

There are already ways to clamp down on password sharing, such as limiting IPs per login or two-factor authentication (like getting a code in text message each time you log in.) Publishers generally avoid these tactics because it's not great for the user experience for paid customers -- additionally, they reduce ad views. So there's a balance.

Netflix took a risk and made password sharing much more difficult. It led to a good increase in subscribers.

Blacklock is trying to have it both ways: having a weak password system and then using the law to punish those who they deem to be take advantage of it. Now *there's* a precedent you don't want to set.

Again (and again and again and again) this changes nothing as the law relates to sharing passwords. 

Personally, I'd rather have giving my elderly parents my Netflix password remain a moral or practical issue rather than a legal one. 

Last edited by RadioAaron (June 3, 2024 5:02 pm)

It certainly has far-reaching implications for Korski and Doan, who've lost this case and all their other copyright infringement cases they've brought thus far and, back in 2016, were ordered to pay the federal government $65,000 in court costs for attempting to bring suit against the Department of Finance in similar circumstances. They are, of course, free to take the matter to the Supreme Court if they wish.

As Michael Giest noted back in 2018, despite all Blacklock's arguments about the "slippery slope" of password sharing, the facts of the case involved members of a government department sharing information about a specific article with the intent of determining whether Blacklock's reporting was up to snuff:

"Affirming well established Supreme Court jurisprudence on fair dealing, the court emphasized that fair dealing is a user’s right that must not be interpreted restrictively. In this case, the court had little trouble finding that the department’s use of the articles qualified as fair dealing given that it was done for a proper research purpose, involved a limited distribution, the originals were obtained legally by a paying subscriber, and officials had a legitimate interest in reading the articles in order to hold Blacklock’s to account for questionable reporting.

The court’s fair dealing assessment is notable for its emphasis on the link between fair dealing and the right to read, expressing concern about the chilling effect if news sources were restricted from reading the results of their interviews with the press:

The articles contained information obtained from the Department in response to Mr. Korski’s queries. As a source, the Department had a direct and immediate interest in their content. Indeed, a finding of copyright infringement against a news source for the simple act of reading the resulting copy is likely to have a chilling effect on the ability of the press to gather information. Such a result cannot be in the public interest.

Indeed, the court characterized the use as simply an act of reading and warned against copyright being used to stop holding the press accountable for potential errors or omissions:

What occurred here was no more than the simple act of reading by persons with an immediate interest in the material. The act of reading, by itself, is an exercise that will almost always constitute fair dealing even when it is carried out solely for personal enlightenment or entertainment. While the public interest is served by the vigilance of the press, copyright should not be a device that serves to protect the press from accountability for its errors and omissions. The Department had a legitimate interest in reading the articles with a view to holding Blacklock’s to account for its questionable reporting."

Last edited by BowmanvilleBob (June 3, 2024 5:20 pm)

RadioAaron wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

Well, we will always differ on that, but you do what your conscience allows. 

I will, just as it allowed me to record music onto a blank cassette in the 80s.
 

Bingo!  And many times that led me to buying my own copy of music on an LP down the road.  So "stealing" the music also resulted in more sales.  On the other hand, as I kept purchasing vinyl during the 90s and 2000s (when it became practically extinct), prices for LPs were SO SO high.  I've purchased more than a dozen albums that were priced over 80 bucks.  Given that, I can sleep very well at night, downloading the odd music, movies or whatever on torrents or from YouTube (as in actually saving the videos).