- Persuade the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse its landmark CCH v. LSUC decision (less than eight years after it was decided) in ways that Prof. Katz discusses in some detail in his blog of March 16, 2012 and, whether or not that happens, to get Parliament to effectively do so via the following steps;
- Get rid of the proposed inclusion of the word "education" in s. 29;
- Prioritize the US fourth fair use “effect on the market” factor as priority numero uno in Canada, when it has no such status in the USA or in England; and,
- Inject the "three-step test" treaty language verbatim into Canadian jurisprudence and even legislation, just so nobody misses the point.
Hopefully this will be webcast live and archived.
Bill Patry has posted a comment with additional material on Mr. Glover's post on Barry Sookman's blog. Patry says:
Harper & Row merely cited Nimmer and did no analysis of its own; it was dictum, Court did not, in fact, base its decision only on the fourth factor. But it is true that until Campbell rejected Harper & Row’s treatment of the fourth factor, lower courts did cite the “single most important factor language.” Judge Leval and I both that Harper & Row and the lower courts following it were wrong on this point and we said so. Our advocacy was adopted by the Campbell court; it is, therefore, is entirely inaccurate of you to pretend that our views remain mere criticisms of Sony and Harper & Row. Campbell accepted them and they are now the law in the U.S., like it or not. (emphasis added)Addendum:
HPK March 12 2012