Blacklock’s Holly Doan has posted a rather hysterical, histrionic, inaccurate,
and misleading post that, among other things, misrepresents Prof. Michael Geist’s blog. This Blacklock’s bravura is
telling – if for no other reason than its failing to suggest ANY credible
ground of appeal of this heavily fact-based and legally solid decision. Once
again, here’s the judgment:
1395804 Ontario Ltd.
(Blacklock’s Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 829 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k4zfr>
Not to be outdone, Ms. Doan’s husband, Tom Korski, appears in a sadly softball
podcast interview.
Blacklock’s has kindly provided both of these for public consumption
without a paywall:
https://www.blacklocks.ca/this-will-be-law-september-1/#cdnpoli
https://x.com/mindingottawa/status/1801211869656449445
Both of them misstate the careful findings of fact and law by Justice
Roy, whose exemplary judgment deals with the use of “licitly” acquired
passwords and fair dealing.
Those entities with competently designed websites with “effective” TPMs who
understand basic copyright law have nothing to fear from this judgment. Indeed,
they should welcome it because it reminds everyone that illicit hacking of a password
or content sharing that is not fair dealing can lead to big trouble. The manner
in which the work is obtained will go to the fair dealing analysis, but does
not necessarily preclude fair dealing.
After all these years and its long litany of litigation losses,
Blacklock’s still offers only an individual
membership level online. Indeed, its botched business model seems to be that of selling single
subscriptions to government departments, posting “inaccurate,
deceptive or inflammatory articles”, and then using ATIPs to identify and
pursue what it considers to be illegal sharing of passwords and/or content.
If Blacklock’s wants to fundraise off a devastating loss (which is a Donald
Trump trick), then Blacklock’s should not mislead potential sympathizers, if
there are any. This is clearly unlikely to attract small donors who might
otherwise contribute to save endangered elephants or support other meritorious causes.
The big players may predictably conclude that any appeal would likely fail and
thus simply reinforce Justice Roy’s decision, which in any event is actually
helpful to them. Moreover, the SCC is very unlikely to take this case if leave
is somehow sought because the SCC doesn’t review fact finding or rewrite
statutes. In this case, the statute is what it is and what it has been for the
last 12 years re TPMs and the last 100+ years re fair dealing – including
several notable decisions since the landmark 2004 CCH decision. Moreover,
Blacklock’s Hail Mary fantasy of a legislative fix is extremely unlikely to
happen. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have known for decades that
controversial copyright revision is not a hill to die on and can indeed be
fatal to the careers of whichever politicians lead the charge.
It should be said that the Department of Justice ought to be very
pleased with the result of this litigation and the work done by Alexander Gay,
General Counsel. Likewise, CIPPIC and Gowlings with respect to its partner
James Plotkin’s exemplary intervention.
BTW, where’s @bsookman’s belated Blacklock’s
blog?
HPK