March 19, 2019, There are many ways to be the wrong side of history:

One way is to stick to the out-dated view that only a “work” merits legislative protection while the various components of a work don't, and to make things even more interesting, cite CCH v. LSUC (which deals with fair use through a library photocopier!!!), in order to contend that private information accessed and subjected to reproductive processes should not be construed as property.

Each and every fragment of data may not be a “work” per se (and we shouldn't really care if it is), but when it is accessed and used through copyright relevant processes, such as extraction and reproduction, then information is being normalized and copyright-protected use takes place.

Having just read the amended directive adopted by the European Parliament, I’m glad to note that section 8(a) rejoins the current trend in the air of why privacy data should be treated like copyrighted material. This is not even the controversial part of the directive.

However, s.8(a) deals with “lawful" access and reproduction. Logically, in matters of unlawful access to privacy data, followed by unlawful reproduction, aggravated and punitive damages should be imposed on wrongdoers, so as to deter such high-handed bullshit.

This one goes out to whoever decided to rewrite my grounds for appeal last October 24, and ask the intelligent question of whether a specific privileged sound, unlawfully accessed and unlawfully subjected to reproductive processes, is a “work”... I couldn’t have come up with such a question, even if I tried really, really hard, but here is your answer: it doesn’t have to be.

Lawful means expressly consented to by owner. A data owner is literally each and every person. Data, as we speak is way more valuable than most "works" out there. Therefore, consent can no longer be the elastic gender-biased notion that Quebec courts are pushing it to be. Usually, what courts refuse to fix ends up as legislative proposals in Parliament (of Canada). One way or another, we'll arrive in the 21st century.

Best of L.L.B. (2014-2017)

favorite papers from my civil law degree:

Habiletés II, Droit constit... by on Scribd

Rossita STOYANOVA, « Quand un nom vaut mille mots », (2017) Les Cahiers de propriété intellectuelle Vol. 29, No 1, pp. 141-172

Fondements II, Hiver 2016, Droit Post-Moderne et Théories Critiques by Rossita Stoyanhoff on Scribd

rs@rossitastoyanova.com