Canadian Internet Law Update - 2014. This paper summarizes selected developments in Canadian Internet law during 2014.
This paper is an overview of significant developments rather than an exhaustive review. Reference to current legislation, regulatory policies and guidelines, and case law is essential for anyone addressing these issues in practice. A. Intellectual Property – Trademarks 1. Unicast SA v. Critical Information Infrastructure Protection and the Law: An Overview of Key Issues. Safe harbour scheme for internet intermediaries. 11.100 Internet intermediaries should not be liable under the tort for invasions of privacy committed by third parties using their services, where they have no knowledge of the invasion of privacy.
Where they do have knowledge, there does not seem to be any justification to provide a complete exemption from liability. The ALRC therefore sees no need to recommend the enactment of a ‘safe harbour’ scheme, to protect internet intermediaries from liability under the tort. 11.101 There are two reasons why intermediaries are unlikely to be liable under this tort. First, the tort is targeted at positive conduct on the part of the defendant.
It is difficult to characterise a failure to act as an ‘invasion’ of privacy. 11.102 A mere intermediary will rarely have this level of intent, when third parties use their service to invade someone’s privacy. 11.109 The provision also imposes a series of obligations on interactive computer service providers: Conditions. Information Superhighway Robbery: The Tortious Misuse of Links, Frames, Metatags, and Domain Names. Vol4_no1_art1.pdf?sequence=1. "Extending Tort Liability to Creators of Fake Profiles on Social Networ" by Bradley Kay. Online Privacy Attorney SilverMcKenna. A burgeoning legal field is tort actions arising from Internet crimes or simply from improper or inappropriate Internet use.
Unfortunately, too few lawyers are adequately aware of or trained in understanding how civil actions work in the content of Internet, cellular and digital privacy. The lawyers in STSW's Internet practice group, SilverMcKenna, provide unparalleled excellence in defending and prosecuting torts arising from Internet, computer and cellular activity. Who Should Be Liable for Online Anonymous Defamation? 82 U Chi L Rev Dialogue 162 (2015) [Essay PDF] Introduction The advent of Web 2.0 technologies and applications has enabled average people—who were previously mere consumers of online content—to publish their own content on various websites, such as blogs, consumer-evaluation platforms (such as Amazon, eBay, and TripAdvisor), news websites (through reader comments), social networking services (such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn), media-sharing websites (such as Instagram and YouTube), and collaborative-writing projects (such as Wikipedia).
Some of these user contributions may be defamatory, and one of the most complex and intriguing legal questions in this context is: Who should be liable for defamatory statements made online by anonymous (or pseudonymous) users? This Essay critically evaluates the answers given in various Western jurisdictions and argues that economic analysis supports a revolutionary liability regime, which we call “residual indirect liability.”1. Civil Liability on the Internet.
By Jay C.
Carle and Henry H. Perritt Jr. The Internet revolution has taken a central role in American society. The Internet is a shopping mall, community center, bank, insurance broker, grocery store, news source, and a way to handle myriad day-to-day chores such as renewing your driver’s license. Although the Internet is an exciting new forum for informational and commercial exchange, it is also an instrument of many civil wrongs, appropriately termed “cyber-torts.” According to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, consumers in 2004 submitted more than 207,000 complaints, marking a 66 percent increase over 2003 ( www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/2004_IC3Report.pdf).
Because of the anonymity that the Internet offers and the difficulty of identifying the primary wrongdoer, it is fair to say that the vast majority of consumers do not even file claims for their injuries or losses. Duty of Care Standard of Care Nevertheless, the risk of online security-related breaches is a growing threat.
"Limiting Tort Liability for Online Third-party Content Under Section 2" by Jonathan A. Friedman and Francis M. Buono. Publication Citation 52 Federal Communications Law Journal 647 (2000) Abstract Section 230 of the Communications Act provides online service providers (OSPs) with immunity from liability for harms arising from third-party content that is made available through an OSP's services.
Some courts have recently held that section 230 immunity covers not only defamation but any tort claim that would make an OSP liable for information originating from the OSP's users or commercial partners. This Article argues that section 230 has been properly interpreted by the courts and that, contrary to the claims of critics, those decisions have not created a disincentive for OSPs aggressively to monitor their sites for defamatory or otherwise harmful content. Recommended Citation Friedman, Jonathan A. and Buono, Francis M. (2000) "Limiting Tort Liability for Online Third-party Content Under Section 230 of the Communications Act," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 52: Iss. 3, Article 12. 234 Downloads.