Bell argues site-blocking doesn’t need CRTC approval

BCE Inc. has asked a Federal Court of Appeal judge to throw out an appeal of Canada's first ever site-blocking court order, saying that TekSavvy Solutions Inc.'s appeal of the order is grounded in "policy reasons." "Be that as it may, the Order appealed from is well-founded in fact and law, and it must therefore stand," Bell argues in a Sep. 2 submission to the court. At issue in the appeal, first filed by TekSavvy in November 2019, is whether or not site-blocking is an available solution to the issue of piracy under the Copyright Act. TekSavvy had also initially argued in its November appeal that when Federal Court judge Patrick Gleeson issued the site blocking order, he made an error in law when he ruled that Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act did not require ISPs like TekSavvy to first get approval from the CRTC before blocking sites. Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act says that except “where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public." Bell, in Wednesday's submission to the appeal court, argues that site-blocking is allowed under the Copyright Act, and quotes from it. "Where copyright has been infringed, the owner of the copyright is, subject to this Act, entitled to all remedies by way of injunction and otherwise that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right," the Copyright Act says, as quoted in Bell's submission. "The Federal Court has jurisdiction to enforce the civil remedies provided by the Copyright Act and, consequently, has jurisdiction to issue an injunction to put an end to the infringement," Bell argues in the filing. As for TekSavvy's argument that site-blocking requires approval by the CRTC under section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, Bell argues that the purpose of section 36 is to ensure that carriers "remain neutral in their carriage of telecommunication signals by prohibiting them from unilaterally controlling the content they carry, for example for commercial, anti-competitive or policy purposes." Bell is not unilaterally controlling or influencing content, it argues, but rather the site-blocking order represents a court deciding that a given "communication is illegal" and subsequently "enjoining common carriers to block access to that content." Bell goes on to argue that there is no CRTC approval required to enforce a Federal Court injunction. The appeal stems from an order -- requested by Bell, Rogers Communications Inc., and Quebecor Inc. -- requiring a number of third-party internet service providers to block an anonymously operated "pirate IPTV" site known as GoldTV. In addition to TekSavvy, the blocking order names Shaw Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp., Telus Corp., Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, and Cogeco Inc.

Bell argues site-blocking doesn’t need CRTC approval

Brief | September 4, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Bell argues site-blocking doesn’t need CRTC approval

Brief | September 4, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telecoms testing their networks for the future of quantum connectivity

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us