Barry Sookman
  • Bio & expertise
    • Bio
    • Technology & Internet Lawyer
    • Copyright and Intellectual Property Lawyer and Litigator
    • Privacy & CASL
    • Government Relations
    • Rankings
  • Books & Articles
  • Speeches & Media
  • Terms
    • Privacy Policy
This site is about technology, copyright, and privacy Law
Barry Sookman
Barry Sookman
  • Bio & expertise
    • Bio
    • Technology & Internet Lawyer
    • Copyright and Intellectual Property Lawyer and Litigator
    • Privacy & CASL
    • Government Relations
    • Rankings
  • Books & Articles
  • Speeches & Media
  • Terms
    • Privacy Policy
Subscribe
  • communication to the public
  • Copyright
  • Fair Dealing
  • infringment
  • intellectual property
  • public perofmance

Redefining copyright in the digital era

  • January 29, 2012
  • Barry Sookman, Dan Glover, Connor Bildfell
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0

Here is a copy of the article with the above title published in the January  20, 2012 edition of The Lawyers Weekly.

In early December, copyright lawyers from across the country descended on the Supreme Court to participate in a cluster of cases that may redefine the scope of copyright in the digital era.

The first case heard, ESA v. SOCAN, put the question directly to the court of how the bundle of rights set out in s. 3 of the Copyright Act ought to be construed in the case of downloads of files containing musical works.  A download of a video game could neither be seen nor heard during the transmission.  Yet the performance rights collective Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada argued that it was “communicated” to the public even though it also had to be installed on a computer or game console before a single note of music could be heard during game play.

The appellants — Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Software Association of Canada (associations of publishers and distributors of computer and video games, whom we represented), contended that the real right at issue was the right to reproduce a work in a material form.  The respondent SOCAN suggested that the s. 3(1)(f ) right to “communicate a work to the public by telecommunication” covered any transmission of information to the public.

The court spent much of its time trying to ascertain from the parties whether Parliament could have intended to extend what was originally introduced as a broadcast right for radio and television to a right covering distribution of copies of works for later use.  Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin asked SOCAN whether a CD still wrapped in its packaging was “communicated” to her; Justice Michael Moldaver asked SOCAN: “Why would Parliament want to put a damper on the most effective mode of communication in the history of mankind?”

The second case heard, Rogers Communications v. SOCAN, focused on the different question of whether a download sent to single subscribers, one at a time, could be “to the public.”  The court was actively involved in this portion of the hearing and asked many probing questions to counsel.

The third and fourth cases involved a revisiting of the fair dealing exception discussed at length in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] S.C.J. No. 12, in which the court held that a custom photocopying made available by the Law Society to authorized legal researchers was for a research purpose and was fair.

In SOCAN v. Bell Canada, SOCAN complained that unauthorized 30-second previews of music downloads were not for the purpose of research and were not a fair dealing. In this appeal, the court lingered on the perceived economic impact of these uses.  On the record, the previews were temporary streams of lower quality versions of songs and the court appeared to consider them as an inducement to purchase full copies of the songs, for which rights holders would be paid.

SOCAN attempted to argue two things: first, that ISPs who make previews available to the public are not engaged in a dealing that is for research purposes.  This point, which was elaborated on by several interveners has two aspects to it. Research is to be given the dictionary meaning accepted in other Commonwealth cases of some diligent and systematic study.  Further, in accordance with all previous cases (including CCH) the ISPs could not claim the exception since they merely facilitated research by users and were themselves not engaged in research. SOCAN also tried to convince the court that the dealing was nor fair.  The court appeared to give SOCAN and the interveners who supported them a very rough time.  Some members of the court asked whether ISPs engaged in research because they facilitated it.  Some also asked whether rights holders and users were both better off with the availability of free previews, thus questioning whether the dealing was fair.

The fourth case, Province of Alberta v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (on which we were counsel for intervening publisher associations) dealt with the question of how fair dealing should apply to the educational setting.  In this case the Copyright Board had found that it was not a fair dealing for a teacher to make multiple copies of a work for a class with instructions to read them.

The appellants suggested that this decision was inconsistent with CCH and pressed repeatedly the contention that, since fair dealing is an “individual right,” fairness must be measured from the perspective of an individual student.  The court asked the appellants a number of questions examining whether this proposition was sound in view of the aggregate number of copies that were made for the category of works.  Justice Moldaver, in particular, wondered whether there could be a fair dealing where there was a “death by a thousand cuts.”

One question raised by the publisher interveners was whether the court would clarify its statement in CCH that the fairness factor of the “effect on the market” is “not the most important factor” in the fairness analysis and that an adverse affect on the market would only suggest unfairness and not make the dealing unfair, as it would be in the U.S. under the fair use doctrine.

The last case heard, Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, dealt with the technical but important question of whether the definition of “sound recording” in s. 2 of the Copyright Act excludes remuneration under s. 19 for individual songs forming part of a movie’s soundtrack.  The appellant relied heavily on international treaty law and commentary to argue that it had a right to collect. It also argued that a recording would not lose its status as such, except where the soundtrack comprised the entire movie soundtrack (the aggregate of all the sounds in the movie).  This interpretation was vigorously disputed by counsel for several respondents.

Collectively, these cases raise important questions that will shape copyright law for many years to come.

*The videos of the appeals can be watched here.

Related

Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0
Related Topics
  • barry sookman
  • Bill C-11
  • canada
  • communication to the public
  • Copyright
  • ESA v Bell
  • fair dealing
  • fair dealing for education
  • Re:Sound
  • SOCAN v Bell
  • sound recordings
  • video games
Previous Article
  • data protection
  • Privacy

EU Commission proposes comprehensive reform of data protection rules

  • January 26, 2012
  • Barry Sookman
View Post
Next Article
  • Copyright
  • copyright reform

Chief Justice asks: will accuracy and fairness be casualties of the social media era?

  • February 1, 2012
  • Barry Sookman
View Post

Subscribe

Subscribe now to our newsletter

You May Also Like
Open AI motion to dismiss
View Post
  • artificial inteliigence
  • Copyright

OpenAI comes out swinging in motions to dismiss copyright class action claims

  • Barry Sookman
  • September 25, 2023
IPO Boston 2023
View Post
  • AI
  • Copyright

Generative AI and copyrights: My talk to the IPO

  • Barry Sookman
  • September 17, 2023
Copyright and GenAI
View Post
  • AI Regulation
  • artificial inteliigence
  • Copyright

Copyright does not protect content produced by Generative AI (GenAI): Thaler v Perlmutter

  • Barry Sookman
  • August 19, 2023
Bitcoin File Format protected by copyrght
View Post
  • Copyright

Copyright may subsist in Bitcoin file format: Wright v BTC Core

  • Barry Sookman
  • August 10, 2023

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe

Subscribe now to our newsletter

Barry Sookman
This site is about technology, copyright, and privacy Law

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

We may be using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Barry Sookman
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website may use cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.