As stated on Dr. Geist’s website, how does one go about getting 200-year old laws changed to suit the 21st century in Canada?

Off-Topic concern:
In regards to the ruling (ie “hit versus “view”), someone correct me if i’m wrong here, but a “view” can’t be taken at face value. There are hundred (if not thousands) of bot crawling the web.

McAffee’s bots (which found your links to a chine website and labeled your website crooked)
Yahoo’s bots
Google’s bots
Thousands of spam bots (bot which flood your forum with crap)
Hundreds of other bots
Humans who just use any way to copy/paste their crap in the comment area without reading the blog entry.

Now if these bots/spammers find an article on your site (either spam it, or link to it like googles) would this not be considered a view?

Now considering these hundreds of views by non-humans, these bots won’t click on your footnote (ie the link that got you sued). So a very high percentage never did see or click on the footnote in question. Same with the human spammers.

Also, it’s likely that it’s a a very small percentage of real readers that will click on, and read your footnotes in depth (I am one that doesn’t bother with footnotes unless it’s something that really really interests me).

So when the discussion of “views” or “hits” came up did the judges realize this? I am inclined to think no, since the judges didn’t know what a “hit” was.

So of 2000 views, how many actually did read the footnote link in depth? I would say a very very small percentage, below 1%.

Anyhow… It’s just something that caught my eye and I wondered if the Media lawyer defending you also caught this. But I’m sure he realized this, and realized this is not the same as printed publication since on print material you won’t have hundreds (or thousands) of bots/spammers causing a “view” or “hit”.

Yet, the judges refer to the blog as a publication (like printed material). It can’t be viewed in the same light.

Just an off-topic concern I caught on to while reading it all.