Quantcast
Blacklock’s Reporter copyright cases could alter online subscription policies - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Blacklock’s Reporter copyright cases could alter online subscription policies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    465
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Blacklock’s Reporter copyright cases could alter online subscription policies

    important, is this?

    will this change things on the internet in canada?



    A slew of copyright cases brought by a small news publisher have raised questions about legal limits on sharing articles protected by paywalls, raised eyebrows among legal experts and spurred allegations of “trolling” in the courts.

    Blacklock’s Reporter, a subscription-only news website run by a team of four editors that covers federal government issues, won more than $13,000 in Small Claims Court last month by arguing that the Canadian Vintners Association infringed copyright when the CVA’s staff obtained an e-mailed copy of an article quoting their chief executive officer from an acquaintance of one of the group’s staff who had a subscription.

    But Blacklock’s, of which its slogan is “Minding Ottawa’s business,” also has nine outstanding claims against the federal government’s departments and agencies, alleging copyright infringement over articles circulated among staff. And government lawyers are fighting back, arguing that Blacklock’s “is a copyright troll” that uses litigation as a “strategy for generating revenue.”

    The vintners decision, as a small-claims matter, won’t influence future cases. But a federal ruling on the same issues could set an important precedent about policing the sharing of news articles protected by paywalls. At issue is the very right to read published material paid for by subscriptions, just as social media and other technologies have made sharing ubiquitous.

    “The conclusions [in the CVA case] are counterintuitive and could have serious repercussions if they’re upheld on appeal,” said Howard Knopf, counsel at Macera & Jarzyna LLP who specializes in copyright law.

    The dispute began in December, 2013, after Blacklock’s published a story quoting testimony to a House of Commons committee by Dan Paszkowski, chief executive officer of the CVA, which represents wine producers. Blacklock’s sent the CVA a “teaser” e-mail with the headline and a few lines of text “both as a courtesy and an advisory given he had been quoted in the story,” according to court documents.

    Mr. Paszkowski worried the story had errors, so one of the the CVA workers asked an acquaintance who had a Blacklock’s subscription to send them the full article by e-mail. Mr. Paszkowski and a colleague both received e-mailed copies and the board of directors was “made aware” of the story at its next meeting.

    In court, Mr. Paszkowski likenepredfd what he did to reading a magazine in a doctor’s office.

    When Mr. Paszkowski contacted Blacklock’s publisher, Holly Doan, to discuss the story, she asked how he got it. The next day, Blacklock’s sent the CVA an invoice for two subscriptions costing $157 each, the annual single-subscriber rate, and later went to court after the CVA refused to pay.

    “We don’t have any choice. There are no police to call when somebody takes our intellectual property,” Tom Korski, managing editor at Blacklock’s Reporter, said in an interview.

    Deputy Judge Lyon Gilbert, who runs an Ottawa-based mediation and arbitration firm, dismissed the CVA’s defence that it engaged in “fair dealing” for the purpose of research – a provision that also protects some uses of copyrighted works, including education and news reporting. He awarded the publisher $11,470 in damages – the price of an institutional subscription for the CVA and its 44 members – plus interest and another $2,000 in punitive damages.

    On his lawyer’s advice, Mr. Paszkowski declined to comment, and it is not clear whether the CVA will appeal the ruling.

    But Prof. Teresa Scassa, the Canada Research Chair in Information Law at the University of Ottawa, said the award seems “extreme” given that only a single article was shared.

    Meanwhile, Blacklock’s has ongoing federal court actions against the departments of Finance, Foreign Affairs and Public Works, the Bank of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Transportation Agency, Canada Revenue Agency, the Competition Bureau and the Library of Parliament. The government is contesting Blacklock’s claims, in part by arguing the publisher is misusing copyright law.

    “The Plaintiff sends ‘teaser’ e-mails to recipients at those departments,” lawyers argue in federal court documents. “The Plaintiff (Blacklock’s) then requests information under the Access to Information Act about the persons who received its articles and demands money from the government department when its personnel forward the Plaintiff’s articles, as anticipated by the Plaintiff.”

    Blacklock’s is seeking between $15,000 and $28,000 in damages from its actions, plus up to $20,000 in punitive damages in some instances, based on the costs of institutional subscriptions tailored to the size of each department or agency. Federal lawyers say such figures are “artificially high.”

    None of the allegations have been proven. But once a federal court issues a decision, “that will certainly be an interesting precedent,” Ms. Scassa said. It could shape what kinds of sharing breaches copyright, when fair dealing is a valid defence, what counts as avoiding a digital lock and whether doing so nullifies fair dealing for future cases.

    Where the CVA is concerned, neither Ms. Scassa nor Mr. Knopf are convinced Blacklock’s copyright was infringed at all.

    “This is fairly new territory,” Prof. Scassa said. “I think that the judge arrived very quickly at a lot of the conclusions.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    Uhh, it's a paid article. How do you figure giving out copies from 1 subscription not theft? The defense is hilarious. That's like saying copying a MP3 isn't stealing because it's like listening to the radio. Talk about keeping it real gone bad. They just wanted a $150 x 2 user subscription and ended up paying 5 figures lol.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    8P 3.2
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by rage2
    Uhh, it's a paid article. How do you figure giving out copies from 1 subscription not theft? The defense is hilarious. That's like saying copying a MP3 isn't stealing because it's like listening to the radio. Talk about keeping it real gone bad. They just wanted a $150 x 2 user subscription and ended up paying 5 figures lol.
    While technically it is theft how is this different than sharing a newspaper? I would say the fee requested is a convenience fee. Like having the Calgary Herald delivered to your door. You can't copyright the news or world events. If it was an editorial article there may be some artistic license but then the subject of said article should have unimpeded access to a story about him. If it was defamatory in nature you shouldn't demand a fee for the subject of the editorial to determine if the publicly available article warrants legal action.

    IMO the judge erred in his decision. It was hastily reached and he likely didn't give it full attention as it would not set precedent being a civil case.

    In the current case of movie copyright infringement asking for IP addresses in Tekksavy vs Voltage pictures, which WOULD set a precedent, the judge has been very clear that copyright trolling is abhorrent and a year ago said that before any nasty grams are sent to internet users the court must approve the letter. They have yet to receive a copy after a year.

    The reason these guys can troll is that there is no personal information required in order to file for damages. So there is no court determination required for privacy vs a small claims litigation where you already know who obtained the article.

    I would be interested to know how they got awarded 11470 in damages if there was no for profit infringement. Current copyright law caps not for profit infringement damages at 5k.

    IMO the judge was asleep on this and this judgement will be easily overturned on appeal.
    Last edited by frizzlefry; 11-09-2015 at 07:54 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    My Ride
    Model S
    Posts
    2,034
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Ironically, every time rob the knob pastes an article from another site, especially without any attribution at all, that is also a copyright violation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    Originally posted by frizzlefry
    While technically it is theft
    Ok.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    8P 3.2
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by rage2

    Ok.
    Yeah yeah Just saying that there is a sliding scale. Look at current copyright law and that is the clear message, technically it is theft. Now what were the circumstances that determine punishment? For profit? Personal use? Was there an intent to acquire licensed data or was this just a guy who wanted to see an article about himself that was publicly available to those who subscribed to it? Like a newspaper or other new article one would pay for. IMO he had a right to see it.

    Technically it is theft. Photocopying articles from a library book is also technically theft.

    When dealing with copyright law there is more weight in the circumstances of the theft than the theft itself.

    This did not encroach on privacy issues and only involved small claims court. That's the only reason they got away with a win. If this is challenged in a higher court they lose. No wonder they have other pending small claims cases. Aim small, win big. Aim big, thus landing outside of small claims, they lose. They are trolls.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    The punishment was 2 subscriptions. $300. More than fair. Trying to justify it in court instead got them to pay for a institutional license plus court costs. That is not copyright trolling. That is making sure that the people who has access to their articles has legitimate access.

    Their terms of use covers this very clearly.

    https://www.blacklocks.ca/terms-and-conditions/
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    8P 3.2
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by rage2
    The punishment was 2 subscriptions. $300. More than fair. Trying to justify it in court instead got them to pay for a institutional license plus court costs. That is not copyright trolling. That is making sure that the people who has access to their articles has legitimate access.

    Their terms of use covers this very clearly.

    https://www.blacklocks.ca/terms-and-conditions/
    Blacklock’s is seeking between $15,000 and $28,000 in damages from its actions, plus up to $20,000 in punitive damages in some instances, based on the costs of institutional subscriptions tailored to the size of each department or agency. Federal lawyers say such figures are “artificially high.”
    He awarded the publisher $11,470 in damages – the price of an institutional subscription for the CVA and its 44 members – plus interest and another $2,000 in punitive damages.
    I don't see the judgement being simply the cost of two subscriptions... looks like trolling to me. Unless I'm missing something here?

    *edit* first paragraph of their terms

    The information contained on this website, including but not limited to news items, articles and opinions, are given for general information and interest purposes only. At the same time we try and ensure all the information contained on the website is accurate and up to date. We do not make any warranty or representation as to the accuracy of any such information and neither accept any liability in connection with any information which is incorrect. You understand and agree that we cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies in the information. You should not rely on this information, and we recommend that you take further advice or seek further guidance before taking any action based on the information contained on this website
    So they publish some bullshit about this guy, he wants to know what they said about him and naturally doesn't want to pay. Then they sue him.

    This would be like TMZ charging a subscription fee then suing Jennifer Lawrence for trying to access her nudies they have been passing out. TMZ after all cannot verify nor confirm any nudies nor if these are actually her boobs and are not responsible for posting said nudies and or possibly Jennifer's boobs. While we may say these are her boobies don't sue us because we cannot confirm or deny, in the definitive, that those are in fact Jennifer's nipples.

    Copyright trolling aside...these guys seem like assholes.
    Last edited by frizzlefry; 11-09-2015 at 11:43 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    It wasn't the judgement. It was what was offered, which CVA rejected. This could have 100% been prevented if they paid the $314.

    When Mr. Paszkowski contacted Blacklock’s publisher, Holly Doan, to discuss the story, she asked how he got it. The next day, Blacklock’s sent the CVA an invoice for two subscriptions costing $157 each, the annual single-subscriber rate, and later went to court after the CVA refused to pay.
    It doesn't matter what they published. It's subscription paywall protected content. You can't pay writers if shit is free. Just ask Mibz and benyl lol.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    My Ride
    Model S
    Posts
    2,034
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Originally posted by frizzlefry





    I don't see the judgement being simply the cost of two subscriptions... looks like trolling to me. Unless I'm missing something here?

    *edit* first paragraph of their terms



    So they publish some bullshit about this guy, he wants to know what they said about him and naturally doesn't want to pay. Then they sue him.

    This would be like TMZ charging a subscription fee then suing Jennifer Lawrence for trying to access her nudies they have been passing out. TMZ after all cannot verify nor confirm any nudies nor if these are actually her boobs and are not responsible for posting said nudies and or possibly Jennifer's boobs. While we may say these are her boobies don't sue us because we cannot confirm or deny, in the definitive, that those are in fact Jennifer's nipples.

    Copyright trolling aside...these guys seem like assholes.
    You're being trolled

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    8P 3.2
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by googe


    You're being trolled
    God damnit rage!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    How am I trolling? I'm just commenting based on the original article.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

Similar Threads

  1. FS: Herschel Supply 15" MacBook laptop cases & iPad cases

    By Afrodeziak in forum Computer Hardware & Peripherals
    Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 04-28-2014, 07:18 PM
  2. FF: dvd cases, cd cases,

    By jahobo in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 11-11-2008, 06:52 PM
  3. Fs: Joe Rocket Alter Ego Motorcycle Pants Size Xl

    By Vlad I. in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 03-15-2008, 04:24 PM
  4. FS: Joe Rocket Alter Ego Textile Pants

    By yellowsnow in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 08-03-2006, 08:36 AM
  5. Banning policies

    By GTS Jeff in forum Suggestion/Comment Box/Forum Related Stuff
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 06-01-2003, 04:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •