Legally, the question is whether the removal of separated bike lanes in Toronto meets the criteria set by the Supreme Court of Canada, originally in 2002 and again this summer, for legislation that is either clearly unconstitutional or “was passed in bad faith or an abuse of power.” Unfortunately, our laws allow the provincial government to interfere in municipal affairs however it wants, even street by street. Toronto does not enjoy the same powers of self-governance as most large cities in the developed world. so Ford’s decision is neither unconstitutional, nor an abuse of power, at least in the formal legal sense.

If the City of Toronto or a third party sued the province over the removal of bike lanes, the decision would probably depend on whether Ford acted in ‘bad faith’, which effectively means that provincial courts will make a subjective claim about the intent of the law/lawmakers. This subjective interpretation of the facts is due to the vague wording of the Supreme Court’s decision, which SC Justice Rowe warned against in his 2024 dissent.

However, recent history suggests Ford would succeed in court. Remember that only a few years ago both the Ontario Court of Appeal and SC upheld the provincial government’s right to interfere in the city’s municipal election and halve the number of elections for council seats during the election. They justified his interference by noting his constitutional right to do so, ignoring the question of bad faith entirely. There’s simple no reason to believe these same justices would rule differently today.

Spare a thought for the users with accounts who upload content to IA for you to enjoy.

You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff’s claim against IA.

Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.

Right now, it’s up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.

edited: hyphens.

I definitely don’t like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously wrong.

The publisher-plaintiffs did not prove the “obvious wrong” in this case, however US-based courts have a curious standard when it comes to the application of Fair Use doctrine. This case ultimately rested on the fourth, most significantly-weighted Fair Use standard in US-based courts: whether IA’s digital lending harmed publisher sales during the 3-month period of unlimited digital lending.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this standard, the publisher-plaintiffs are not required to prove harm, rather only assert that harm has occurred. If they were required to prove harm they’d have to reveal sales figures for the 27 works under consideration–publishers will do anything to conceal this information and US-based courts defer to them. Therefore, IA was required to prove a negative claim–that digital lending did not hurt sales–without access to the empirical data (which in other legal contexts is shared during the discovery phase) required to prove this claim. IA offered the next best argument (see pp. 44-62 of the case document to check for yourself), but the data was deemed insufficient by the court.

In other words, on the most important test of Fair Use doctrine, which this entire case ultimately pivoted upon, IA was expected to defend itself with one arm tied behind its back. That’s not ‘fair’ and the publishers did not prove ‘obvious’ harm, but the US-based courts are increasingly uninterested in these things.

edited: page numbers on linked court document.

Here you go:

• https://ia801600.us.archive.org/23/items/future-ruins-hwln-04-031/HWLN-04-031-i.JPG
• https://ia801600.us.archive.org/23/items/future-ruins-hwln-04-031/HWLN-04-031-ii.JPG

What an experience!

The F-22 impressed us. In this photo, it is flying over the lake, which when compared to objects in the foreground shows how big it is. In the second photo, it flew vertically upward, was suspended for a moment to light off two flares, and briefly dropped line a stone before pulling out again. Dramatic stuff. These redditors have a bit more context on the significance of it flying here.

We were inspired by your recent photos. We’ll post more.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Remember his cover of ‘Sweet Child O’ Mine’ by Guns n’ Roses?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

“We have new people whose life experiences have been radically different than ours. And so for those of us who have been here for decades or a long time, it gives us an insight into how people lived in other parts of the world, and now they’re with us and we want to learn about them. So we are one united community.”

This is such a positive take from someone in leadership re: new immigration to their community. It can be difficult to manage unexpected population growth and the federal/provincial governments offer poor support to growing communities across Canada. Mr. Morrison and his neighbours deserve lots of credit and respect for welcoming new neighbours who’ve been through a lot. They sound like good people.

deleted by creator

Just a reminder that many former government staff, ex-elected officials, family members and acquaintances of current politicians, etc. are now lobbyists and/or investors in the commercial cannabis sector. For example, Smitherman (CEO of CCC) worked for 4 decades in Ontario politics before becoming a lobbyist. As the retailer quoted in this article says, these politically-connected producers are the intended beneficiaries of pricing changes, not the retailers or customers.

Unfortunately, this is standard business practice in Canada: now that they have achieved market dominance over less-connected peers, they look to the government to help protect their profits, which they will use to purchase struggling competitors to further consolidate the industry and allow them to raise wholesale prices in the future. Once only 2-3 major producers remain in the country, they will have spent two decades lobbying the government and can look forward to protectionist government intervention, price collusion, and guaranteed profits, not unlike Rogers/Bell/Telus enjoy today.

deleted by creator

Swiss technology company that focuses on privacy products. Initially funded by a Swiss startup capital firm and now uses a subscription model. ProtonMail is not open source or non-profit, but the product they offer is privacy. Switzerland also has strict privacy laws and resists state-based information requests. Best option is to run one’s own email client server, but simple folks like me don’t have the skills to do so. (FWIW, I use ProtonMail and think it works great.)

deleted by creator

deleted by creator