I am currently at the Internet Librarian 2008 conference in Monterey, CA. Under the category of “I wish you were here” is the presentation by Michael Sauers, Technology Innovation Librarian from the Nebraska Library Commission. I caught the tail end of his presentation and unfortunately didn’t take notes, but here are his Lessig-esque slides. Michael knows a lot about Creative Commons through practical use as well as trial-and-error.

The Canadian government has released the massive (544 pages) final report of the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin [PDF] chaired by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, q.c. Commissioner. There is a secret report, as well as this public version, containing material subject to national security confidentiality.

It is worth, I believe, quoting at some length from Justice Iacobucci’s opening “Commissioner’s Statement”:

[R]espect for rights and freedoms is a constraint on a democracy that ter-rorists do not share. Indeed by their very actions they repudiate these rights and freedoms.

Copyright didn’t play a large part in the recent Canadian election (despite Michael Geist’s admirable efforts), and it hasn’t played much of a role south of the border either. However, it did make a brief appearance last week.

It turns out some of John McCain’s campaign videos, which had been uploaded to this year’s hottest campaigning tool, Youtube, contained copyrighted material (in particular, the infamous clip of Barack Obama describing – fill in the blank – as “lipstick on a pig”). In accordance with their obligations under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Youtube removed the ads after when the . . . [more]

The website of the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario includes an interesting discussion of publication bans in Ontario, but really misses the point when it comes to the distribution of court judgments and publication bans in the era of online distribution and access to legal information.

Publication bans are described on the website as “an exception to the constitutional right of the media to publish information about court cases”. The website goes on to say that publication bans may be necessary in certain cases “to protect the fairness and integrity of the case, the privacy or safety of . . . [more]

Slashdot had a post yesterday about an Australian copyright case (IceTV Pty Ltd & Anor v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited) in which leave was granted back in August to appeal to the High Court, Australia’s highest court. (The transcript of the leave hearing is available on the marvelous AustLII. Isn’t that a civilized way to run a legal system? Wouldn’t it make sense for transcripts of Supreme Court hearings to be available to all online?)

Seems IceTV published the weekly broadcast schedule of the competing Nine Network, along with that of other broadcasters; they have a TV . . . [more]

In an announcement yesterday, Canada became the first country in the world to ban biphesnol A (BPA) in baby bottles, adding it to the toxic substance list.

The plan implements a 6-month program by the government to consult with scientists and experts. The sale, importation, and advertising of BPA bottles can now be controlled by the Minister of Health. But the substance is so commonly used in manufacturing, that many suggest eradicating it will be a challenge.

The European Union and the U.S. FDA have looked into the risks of BPA, but have not moved to ban it yet. The . . . [more]

European courts have had something to say lately about whether disclosing encryption keys would amount to self-incrimination, and whether disclosing an IP address involved an undue disclosure of personal information.

An English court (R. v. S and A [2008] EWCA Crim 2177) held that compulsory disclosure of an encryption key was not improper. Out-Law.com has the story:

“In this sense the key to the computer equipment is no different to the key to a locked drawer,” said the judge. “The contents of the drawer exist independently of the suspect: so does the key to it. The contents may

As a supplement to Omar’s post, the US Human Rights Action Center has a beautiful animated and musical version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not the exact text, mind you, but a faithful rendering of its spirit and parts, minus a bit of stiffness. It proves that, as Simon suspected , not all lawyers are typographically challenged.

I’m introducing International Legal Research to our Jessup Moot team today, and the compromis raises, among others, issues of human rights and humanitarian intervention. On these topics the best guide I have found is Marci Hoffman’s chapter in the . . . [more]

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is hosting a conference this weekend in Toronto on Defending Human Rights in a Free Society.

The line-up promises a keynote by David Frum, a Canadian lawyer/journalist. Frum was also a former speech-writer for outgoing U.S. President, George W. Bush. But don’t hold that against him – instead look at Frum’s new book due late this year that defends the Iraqi invasion, and advocates adding Iran and Syria to the list.^[*]

 Starring Line-Ups

CCF is also presenting some semblance of balance by pairing off Elizabeth Brubaker of the Energy . . . [more]

In the space of a week, “Joe the Plumber” from Toledo, Ohio has become a minor celebrity. Since he asked Barak Obama on the campaign trail about the effect of Obama’s tax policy last week, he was repeatedly used by John McCain as an example and archetype of a small business owner.

I think the story is a bit of an archetype of inadvertent celebrity and dirt-digging that just about anyone is vulnerable to when their private life is thrown into the prevailing media orgy. Dirt is dug with little concern about the effect on the unwitting subject.

So what . . . [more]

Sarah Bird at SEOmoz has an interesting post regarding the recent Jones Day linking law suit (link to EFF’s amicus brief), where the firm launched a claim against an ecommerce site for using its trademark, “Jones Day”, to refer to the firm in a headline, and link to the firm website, which could lead to confusion over the sponsorship of the site.

Specifically, I found this quote from Sarah’s post very interesting:

“Instead, Jones Day is suing over the use of its name as anchor text for a link to its website. It claims that its mark is being diluted

Somewhat buried in all the news today of Liberal infighting, market meltdowns, and U.S. electioneering was a CRTC notice announcing the beginning of hearings on broadcasting and New Media. This hearing follows up on its earlier consultations this year setting the terms of reference for the hearings, and more generally on the CRTC’s New Media Project Initiative, begun in 2007.

No one, surely, could accuse the CRTC of acting precipitously on this issue: even with respect to yesterday’s announcement, a CRTC spokesman (quoted in today’s Globe and Mail) emphasized that the proceeding is about “understand[ing] the . . . [more]