ARCHIVED — A Jeffrey Streifling
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
COPYRIGHT REFORM PROCESS
REPY COMMENTS
Documents received have been posted in the official language in which they were submitted. All are posted as received by the departments, however all address information has been removed.
Reply comment from Jeffrey Streifling received on October 04, 2001 via e-mail
Subject: Reply to CPDCI submissions: "Notice & Notice"
I am writing to reply to the submissions of the Canadian Cable Television Association's (and those of others) in response to the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues.
The CCTA's analysis of the issue of liability for network intermediaries is both accurate and lucid, but of particular interest is their description of the "Notice & notice" procedure. This procedure exactly solves the problem of lack of judicial oversight I discussed in my own submission paper. This is the way that Canada should address the issue of network intermediary liability. It is so clean and the alternative ("notice and takedown") discussed in the consultation paper is so problematic that it would seem to me to be incredibly foolish to replace a working procedure with a procedure that is so dubious (with respect to constitutional legitimacy)!
The Canadian government should standardize the existing, working "notice and notice" procedure in statute as is proposed in several submission papers. It is not only a proven solution, but it also properly preserves judicial oversight.
Jeffrey Streifling
(Internet address removed)
- Date modified:
