tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-208031052024-03-16T15:13:54.175-04:00EXCESS COPYRIGHTIntellectual property law is good. Excess in intellectual property law is not. This blog is about excess in Canadian & international copyright, trademarks, patent & related law. I have practiced IP law with prestigious firms & successfully acted for interveners in several Supreme Court cases. I've also been in government & academe. My views are purely personal. Nothing on this blog should be taken as legal advice.Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comBlogger1274125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-20114627512801755962024-02-23T16:04:00.004-05:002024-02-24T15:46:41.881-05:00Access Copyright Adds To Its Lengthy Litany Of Litigation Losses<p>It is easy
to lose track of how many major decisions that Access Copyright has LOST in the
last twenty years, which include three straight losses in the Supreme Court of
Canada (CCH in 2004, Alberta in 2012, and York in 2021) and now a very notable
Federal Court decision that is likely to be upheld in any appeal.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The latest
is the landmark ruling by Justice Aylen of the Federal Court in<span> <b><i><a href="https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/525044/index.do">Province
of Alberta et al v. Access Copyright</a></i> </b></span>2024 FC 292,<i> </i>rendered February
22, 2024.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">I have quoted at length from
Justice Aylen’s ruling because it is very long (121 pages) and detailed and
will be a challenge even to experienced copyright lawyers to read carefully on
short notice. For whatever reason, it does not have a table of contents. But it
is a “must read” for every copyright lawyer, educator and copyright policy
official in Canada. It was issued very quickly and decisively, following final arguments
just over a month ago on January 17 and 18, 2024. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">At times in this blog, I refer to Access
Copyright as “AC”. I refer to the plaintiffs, Province of Alberta et al, as the
“Consortium”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Justice Aylen
states the issues, as agreed by the parties, at the outset:</p>
<p class="Default"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[3]
The parties have brought a motion for summary trial in which they have jointly
asked the Court to answer the following three questions: <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 150%;">1. Have the Plaintiffs been licensees
from 2013 onward?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 150%;">2. If the Plaintiffs have not been
licensees from 2013 onward, are the Plaintiffs nevertheless liable in equity to
pay Access Copyright? <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">3.
If the Plaintiffs are not liable in equity to pay Access Copyright, is Access
Copyright entitled to retain the 2010-2012 overpayment in any event? <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Spoiler
alert – here is the bottom line of the ruling at page 121:</p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><b><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">THIS
COURT ORDERS that: </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">1.
It is declared that the Plaintiffs overpaid Access Copyright for tariff
royalties during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 by an amount equal to $2.35 per
full-time equivalent student [Overpayment]. The total amount of the Overpayment
as paid by each Plaintiff, exclusive of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and inclusive of the Copyright Board-set interest factor and taxes, is as set
out in Schedule B to the Statement of Claim. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">2.
It is declared that the Plaintiffs were not licensees of the Approved 2010-2015
Tariff from 2013 to 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">3.
It is declared that the Plaintiffs are not liable to Access Copyright in
equity, or otherwise, in relation to any of the claims advanced by Access
Copyright in this proceeding. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">4.
It is declared that Access Copyright is not entitled to retain the Overpayment.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">5.
Access Copyright shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs a refund of the
Overpayment, in the amounts as set out in Schedule B to the Statement of Claim.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">6.
Access Copyright shall pay to the Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest on the
Overpayment, calculated pursuant to subsection 36(1) of the Federal Courts Act.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">7. Access Copyright shall pay to the Plaintiffs post-judgment
interest on the Overpayment, calculated pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the
Federal Courts Act. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">8. Access Copyright shall pay to the Plaintiffs their costs
of this motion and the underlying proceeding calculated based on the mid-point
of Column III of Tariff B [the Tariff], with the exception of the documentary
production costs which shall be calculated based on the mid-point of Column IV
of the Tariff. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">9. Access Copyright shall pay to the Plaintiffs their
reasonable disbursements of the motion and the underlying proceeding. In the
event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the disbursements
shall be assessed by an assessment officer. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">10. Access Copyright’s counterclaim is hereby dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">“Mandy Aylen”</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext">The essence of the Consortium’s
claim as stated by Justice Aylen in the very lengthy and detailed recitation of
facts was this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[36]
On February 16, 2018, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in York University,
the Plaintiffs commenced this action against Access Copyright seeking, among
other relief: (a) a declaration that Access Copyright’s tariffs as certified by
the Board are not mandatory; (b) a declaration that the Plaintiffs overpaid
Access Copyright for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 by an amount equal to $2.35
per FTE student; and (c) payment by Access Copyright of a refund or monetary
damages to the Plaintiffs in the amount of the overpayment, namely <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">$25,493,109.36</span>, together
with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. </span></i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">(highlight added)<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span><span color="windowtext">Further:</span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext">[83]
In a letter dated May 4, 2016 [2016 Letter], the Plaintiffs requested a refund
from Access Copyright of the difference between the per FTE student rate of
$4.81 that was paid in 2010 through 2012 under the continuation tariff and the
$2.46 per FTE student rate that was ultimately certified, in accordance with
section 15(5) of the Approved 2010-2015 Tariff. The total amount sought by the
Plaintiffs was <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">$25,493,109.36</span></span></i><span color="windowtext" style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">. (</span><span color="windowtext">highlight added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext">Note that this figure does NOT
include interest due.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span><span color="windowtext">This is a</span><span color="windowtext"> </span><span color="windowtext">lot of money but the matters of principle are
even more important. Justice Aylen pays significant attention and reliance on
the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in the York case, which came down in the
midst of this litigation, and the SCC’s 2015 decision in </span><i style="color: windowtext;">CBC v. SODRAC.</i><span color="windowtext">
I was counsel for CARL in both these cases. I acted for David Lametti, as he
then was, and Ariel Katz in the SODRAC case, and made complementary submissions
to Ariel Katz in the York case. The York decision relied on the brilliant
scholarship of Ariel Katz in his “Spectre I” and “Spectre II” papers. I am
proud to have worked with Ariel over the years to demolish the myth of the “spectre”
of mandatory tariffs. He deserves the main credit.</span></p>
<p class="Default"><span color="windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span><span color="windowtext">AC’s main argument was that it
was entitled, based on the very amorphous mostly common law of “equity”</span><span color="windowtext"> </span><span color="windowtext">and other stretches of the common law, to
keep this money. But the </span><i style="color: windowtext;">Copyright Act</i><span color="windowtext"> does not provide for equitable
relief for an entity such as AC that is neither a rights owner or exclusive
licensee. She rules that:</span></p>
<p class="Default"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[259]
Accordingly, I find that none of Access Copyright’s asserted common law
doctrines apply so as to prevent the Plaintiffs from seeking a return of their
royalty overpayments. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Justice Aylen has some scathing
findings re other aspects of AC’s submissions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[192] While this is sufficient to dispose of Access <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">Copyright’s meritless assertion</span>
that participating in the tariff-setting process at all levels (before the
Board, this Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal) constituted an offer to
pay, the rationale for why the Plaintiffs would have participated <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">sheds further light on the
absurdity of Access Copyright’s assertion.</span> At the relevant time, the
Supreme Court had not yet decided York University, so it was possible that the
Plaintiffs would be bound to a statutory licence. If that were ultimately the
case, it is obvious that it was in the Plaintiffs’ interests to participate and
advocate for a tariff lower than the one being proposed by Access Copyright
($15.00 for 2010 to 2012 and $9.50 for 2013 to 2015), which was an increase of
$10.19 and $4.69 per FTE over and above the royalty under the Approved
2005-2009 Tariff. </span></i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(highlight added)<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[224]
<span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">To interpret the Copyright
Act as allowing equitable remedies that permit recovery of a remedy provided
for under subsection 68.2(1), but not otherwise available to Access Copyright
under the Copyright Act (because the Plaintiffs were not licensees), would be
incompatible with the object of the Copyright Act and result in absurdity.</span>
Parliament has struck a careful balance between users’ and creators’ rights, as
well as with respect to the risk of collective societies developing
monopolistic powers. In striking that balance, Parliament chose to make
statutory licenses voluntary. <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">To permit Access Copyright to obtain through equity what it cannot
obtain under the Copyright Act would turn the copyright regime on its head, by
effectively making voluntary statutory licences mandatory through the use of
equitable remedies. Under the circumstances, it is “irresistibly clear” that
the statutory scheme precludes Access Copyright from seeking the equitable
remedies</span> it claims in the circumstances of this proceeding [see Moore,
supra at para 70].</span></i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">(highlight added)<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[227]
This concern lays bare one of the problems with Access Copyright’s equitable
claims. While Access Copyright has gone to great lengths to assert in its
submissions that it is not making an infringement claim (notwithstanding the
language used in its pleading), Access Copyright grounds its equitable claims
in the Plaintiffs’ acts of compensable copying. But compensable copying in the
absence of a licence is merely an act of infringement—an unauthorized exercise
of the owner’s exclusive right. As stated by the Supreme Court in York
University, a person who has not paid or offered to pay is not licensed and may
be liable for infringement<span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">.
To permit Access Copyright to obtain an equitable remedy for compensable
copying would have the effect of using equity to make the tariff de facto
mandatory or permitting Access Copyright (a non-exclusive licensee) to recover
for infringement, either of which would turn the copyright regime on its head.</span>
</span></i><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">(highlight added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[228]
Through its equitable claims, considered collectively, Access Copyright
ultimately seeks payment by the Plaintiffs of an amount equivalent to the
royalties the Plaintiffs would have owed had they been licensees, which would
result in the inequities and absurdities addressed above. </span></i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">(</span><span color="windowtext" style="font-size: 11.5pt;">highlight
added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[229]
For these reasons, I conclude that, in the circumstances, <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">it is not open to this Court to
award the equitable remedies sought by Access Copyright as to do so would turn
the copyright regime on its head.</span> (highlight added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[273]
For the reasons stated above, my determination in relation to each of the
issues is as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">1.
Were the Plaintiffs licensees in 2013, 2014 and 2015? No. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">2.
If the Plaintiffs were not licensees from 2013 to 2015, are the Plaintiffs
nevertheless liable in equity, or otherwise, to pay Access Copyright an amount
equivalent to the tariffs royalties for 2013 to 2015? <b>No. </b><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">3.
If the Plaintiffs are not liable in equity, or otherwise, to pay Access
Copyright an amount equivalent to the tariff royalties for 2013 to 2015, is
Access Copyright entitled to retain the 2010 to 2012 overpayment in any event? <b>No.
</b><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="tab-stops: 185.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">As to
costs, Justice Aylen rules:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; tab-stops: 185.5pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">[296]
Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs to be
calculated in accordance with the mid-point of Column III of the Tariff for all
steps in this proceeding, other than documentary production steps which shall
be calculated in accordance with the mid-point of Column IV of the Tariff. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">My overall assessment:</span></b></p>
<p class="Default"><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">This ruling
is<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>incredibly important, detailed,
meticulous, and comprehensive. It reviews the evidence, the arguments, and the
applicable case law in unusual and commendable detail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">I would say, in
my opinion and based upon my long experience, that any appeal by AC is unlikely
to succeed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Needless to say,
an affirmation by the Federal Court of Appeal would be even further devastating
to Access Copyright.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Moreover, any
appeal might spark a cross appeal as to costs, which is the one aspect where AC
got some sympathy. Column 3 costs, as awarded to the Consortium, are at most a
small fraction of actual costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Although his
cases technically began in 2018, there was a lengthy leadup between the parties
at the Copyright Board and in the lobbying corridors. The Consortium deserves
credit <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for fighting for justice for Canadian
educators for so long.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">This ruling is anything
but shocking. It confirms that Canada, like the USA, does NOT have mandatory
tariffs and that fair dealing is important and a key aspect of the copyright
bargain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Given the recent
downsizing and restructuring of AC and the departure of Roanie Levy, it will be
interesting to see if it now takes a less aggressive litigation approach or doubles
down and becomes even more aggressive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Finally, this case provided an
interesting contrast in advocacy and approach:</span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">AC’s positions were very aggressive and sought to turn
the <i>Copyright Act</i> “on its head”, as the ruling repeatedly states. AC’s
oral advocacy, as led by Sarit Batner of McCarthy’s, was very dramatic, perhaps
even melodramatic and too much so, even allowing for the “meritless” and “absurdity”
aspect of many<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>of AC’s key submissions..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The Consortium’s positions and oral advocacy, led by
Aidan O’Neill of Fasken,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>were much more restrained,
concise, and even understated. In the result, this approach was clearly far more
convincing in this instance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Let me remind readers, as<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>always, that nothing in this blog is legal advice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">HPK</span></p><p class="Default"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Note: I've corrected the above to reflect that the final arguments were on January 17 & 18, not February 17 & 18.</span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-18919221838569591552024-01-22T11:25:00.002-05:002024-01-22T12:34:46.179-05:00Province of Alberta et al v Access Copyright - Court File T-326-18<p> I watched
with great interest the two-day summary judgment hearing on January 17 and 18,
2024 in Province of Alberta et al v. Access Copyright. This particular
proceeding has been going on for almost five years, and the overall confrontation
between these parties for much longer. I would expect, with the inevitable
appeals, that it could go on potentially for years to come. There is much that
I could say about all this, but I won’t say it now.</p>
<p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I will,
however, say this. For the purpose of its so-called equitable claim in this
litigation, Access Copyright argued in court that the 2012 amendment to the <i>Copyright
Act</i> adding the word “education” to fair dealing was not significant – since
it wants to assert that the educators had no basis to rely on greater fair
dealing rights and somehow, via equity, should be forced to pay up for their allegedly
uncompensated use since then. As Access Copyright wrote in its memorandum for
the court, “</span><span>In sum, as the Plaintiffs
themselves made clear, <i>nothing </i>within the <i>Copyright Modernization Act
</i>converted <b><i>fair </i></b>dealing into <b><i>free </i></b>dealing.”<o:p style="font-size: 11.5pt;"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>On the
other hand, Access Copyright is loudly and flagrantly contradicting this
position outside the court room in its aggressive campaign to get rid of the
word “education”, since it asserts on the lobbying front that the addition of
this word education has cost it over $200 million dollars.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">e.g. “</span><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.accesscopyright.ca/media/announcements/canadian-writers-visual-artists-and-publishers-lose-the-ability-to-have-their-rights-and-interests-protected-as-federal-government-fails-to-deliver-on-its-promise-to-fix-canada-s-publishing-marketplace/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">TORONTO [July 13,
2023]</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"> –</span><strong><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #4b4b4b; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span></strong><span lang="EN-US">Due to changes in fair dealing provisions in
the <i>Copyright Act</i>, since 2012, Canadian writers, visual artists,
and publishers - an indispensable part of Canada’s culture - have been deprived
of over $200 million in unpaid royalties under tariffs certified by the
Copyright Board of Canada”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Taking
contradictory positions in different forums at the same time is, at the very
least, unusual and potentially problematic. Go figure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">BTW, the
educators relied very heavily on the SODRAC and York decisions from the SCC,
wherein the submissions of Prof. Ariel Katz, Prof. David Lametti as he then was
in the SODRAC case, and myself were determinative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">HPK<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-50617984676361512962023-10-19T13:12:00.001-04:002023-10-19T13:12:40.791-04:00Province of Alberta et al v. Access Copyright, Federal Court T-326-18 - Next Steps in Summary Trial Motion<p> For those following the proceedings in Province
of Alberta et al v. Access Copyright, Federal Court T-326-18 (the K-12 proceeding), which I <b><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2023/10/k-12-school-boards-v-access-copyright.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">wrote about on October 5, 2023</span></a>,</span></b><span style="color: #00b050;"> </span>here is what to expect following the conclusion
of the opening statements and evidentiary phase of the summary trial motion.
This is the Direction of the Federal Court from presiding Justice Aylen dated October 17,
2023:</p><p>Ottawa, Ontario</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">K1A 0H9<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">October 17, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">BY EMAIL ONLY<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Counsel for the Plaintiffs</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Wanda Noel </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">wanda.noel@bell.net</span><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">wanda.mary.noel@gmail.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ariel Thomas </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">law@arielthomas.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">J. Aidan O’Neill </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">aoneill@fasken.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Alexandra Logvin </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">alogvin@fasken.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Counsel for the Defendant:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sarit Batner </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">sbatner@mccarthy.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Barry B. Sookman </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">bsookman@mccarthy.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Daniel G.C. Glover </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">dglover@mccarthy.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Laura E. MacDonald </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">lmacdonald@mccarthy.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Allison Spiegel </span><span style="color: #0563c2; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">aspiegel@mccarthy.ca<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">RE: </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">THE PROVINCE OF
ALBERTA ET AL v. THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">LICENSING AGENCY<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Court File No: T-326-18<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This will confirm the Directions of the Court
(Madam Justice Aylen) issued on October<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">17, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“The following timetable
shall apply to the closing arguments on the summary trial motion:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(a) Access Copyright shall
serve and file their further written representations (which shall<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">not exceed 60 pages in
length, without leave of the Court) by no later than November 10, 2023,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">which shall replace their
original written representations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(b) The Plaintiffs shall
serve and file their further responding written representations<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(which shall not exceed 60
pages in length, without leave of the Court) by no later than<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">December 4, 2023, which
shall replace their original written representations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(c) Access Copyright shall
serve and file any reply written representations by no later than<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">December 18, 2023.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="background: yellow; color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">(d) The oral closing arguments shall be held, in person,
at the Federal Court in Toronto<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="background: yellow; color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">on January 17 and 18, 2024 commencing at 9:30 am
(Eastern).</span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(e) The parties shall
ensure that their further representations address, among other things,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">the following issues:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">a. Who bears the burden of
proof on each issue;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">b. How the limitation
period issue factors into each of the three issues put forward by the<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">parties, if at all;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">c. Substantive submissions
on the asserted limitation bar (including in relation to any<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">equitable relief), with
reference to the relevant evidence (such as the presence or absence of<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">FTE forms, FTE reporting,
invoicing, etc.);<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">d. Can someone “offer to
pay” under the Copyright Act by way of their conduct?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">e. Where the Court finds
the terms of the licence that Access Copyright asserts that the<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Plaintiffs offered to pay
for;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">f. The distinction between
the tariff and a licence, if any;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">g. What documents shed
light on the parties’ understanding of the term of the licence<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that Access Copyright
asserts that the Plaintiffs offered to pay for (annual, 3 years, 6 years);<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">h. Did the Copyright Board
amalgamate the two proposed tariffs or simply hear them<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">together? What impact, if
any, does this have on the term of the licence?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">i. How, if at all, the
principles applicable to oral contracts come into play in establishing<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">the terms and conditions of
the licence that Access Copyright asserts that the Plaintiffs offered<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">to pay for;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">j. How does a continuation
tariff impact the term of the asserted licence, if it all;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">k. Is there an ability to
terminate the licence that Access Copyright asserts that the<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Plaintiffs offered to pay
for and if so, on what basis and where does that ability come from?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">l. Clear submissions as to
the evidence relied upon and theory of liability for Access<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Copyright’s assertion that
the Plaintiffs offered to pay for a licence for each of 2016, 2017,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">2018, 2019, 2020, 2021,
2022 and 2023;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">m. Is Access Copyright
asking the Court to find that the Plaintiffs have engaged in serial<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">infringement and if so,
what evidence supports that assertion?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">n. To grant the equitable
remedies sought by Access Copyright, does the Court need to<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">make a finding of
infringement?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">o. What use can be made of
the Copyright Board’s decision and the 2005-2006 volume<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">study on the issue of infringement;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">p. Can the Court consider
the agreement between the parties regarding the uses to be<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">made of the volume study?
If so, is this proceeding off-side that agreement?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">q. Can the Plaintiffs
assert a lack of clean hands on the part of Access Copyright given<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">the state of the Plaintiffs’
pleadings?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">r. Whether Access Copyright
has standing to assert each form of equitable relief sought;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">s. Whether equitable relief
is available under the Copyright Act and if so, pursuant to<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">which provision(s) thereof;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">t. The framing of issue 3
and whether a claim for equitable set-off can be made out if the<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">answer to issue 2 is “no”;
and<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">u. The specific relief
sought by each party in the form of a draft order.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Yours truly,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Aline Longin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Registry Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(highlight added)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-16302600373890566832023-10-05T23:24:00.003-04:002023-10-06T14:14:43.136-04:00I asked ChatGPT "What are the copyright issues involved with generative AI?"<p> <span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">So - I asked ChatGPT "What are the
copyright issues involved with generative AI?".</span></p><p><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Here's its answer. Not bad for the price and the instant response time...😉:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(25, 195, 125); line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">ChatGPT</span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Generative AI, which includes
models like GPT-3 and similar technologies, can raise several copyright issues
and legal considerations. It's important to note that copyright law can vary
from country to country, so it's essential to consult with a legal expert for
specific advice. However, here are some general copyright issues and concerns
related to generative AI:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); margin-left: 18pt; margin-right: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5pt;">
<ol start="1" style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Ownership of Generated Content</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: One of the primary copyright
concerns is determining the ownership of content generated by AI. In many
jurisdictions, the creator of a work holds copyright over it. But when AI
generates content, there is no human creator in the traditional sense.
This raises questions about whether the AI developer, the user of the AI,
or both have rights to the generated content.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Fair Use and Transformative Use</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: Copyright law often
permits the use of copyrighted material under the doctrine of "fair
use" (or similar concepts in different legal systems). Whether
AI-generated content qualifies as fair use or a transformative use can be
a complex legal question. It depends on factors like the purpose of the
use, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the amount used.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Training Data and Pre-existing
Copyrighted Material</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: The data used to train generative AI models
often includes copyrighted material. The model may inadvertently generate
content that resembles or replicates this copyrighted material. This can
lead to copyright infringement claims.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Licensing and Permissions</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: Users and developers of
generative AI should consider obtaining appropriate licenses or permissions
when using copyrighted materials to train models or generate content,
especially when using it for commercial purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Attribution and Plagiarism</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: When AI generates content,
it may not provide proper attribution to the original sources of
information or ideas it used to generate that content. This can lead to
plagiarism concerns and copyright disputes.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Derivative Works</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: Generative AI can create
derivative works based on existing content, which can infringe upon the
original copyright if not properly licensed or transformed.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Public Domain and Open Source</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: It's important to
distinguish between copyrighted and public domain or open-source content.
Content generated by AI based on public domain or open-source materials
may have different legal considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">User Responsibility</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: Users of generative AI are
responsible for the content generated by the AI they use. They should be
aware of copyright laws and ensure that they are not infringing on the
rights of others.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; padding: 0cm;">Case Law and Legal Developments</span></b><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">: Copyright law is still
evolving in response to AI and machine-generated content. Courts and
lawmakers are continually addressing these issues, so it's essential to
stay informed about legal developments in this area.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; margin: 15pt 0cm 5pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In summary, the copyright issues surrounding generative
AI are complex and evolving. It's crucial for AI developers, users, and content
creators to be aware of these issues, seek legal advice when necessary, and
ensure compliance with copyright laws and regulations in their jurisdiction.
Additionally, it's essential to consider ethical considerations related to the
use of AI-generated content and its potential impact on creators and the
creative industries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-33170492120601943732023-10-05T12:29:00.000-04:002023-10-05T12:29:32.317-04:00K-12 School Boards v Access Copyright & Vice Versa - October 10, 2023 Federal Court Summary Trial<p>In 2018, the Province of Alberta and dozens
of K-12 school boards sued Access Copyright for a refund of $25 million they allegedly
overpaid for Access Copyright licences for 2010, 2011 and 2012.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Access Copyright, on the other hand,
has defended and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>counterclaimed for a
potentially much larger amount based upon subsequent Copyright Board tariffs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Of course, as we all know, the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled in 2021 that Access Copyright’s Copyright Board tariffs
are not “mandatory”. See <i><span style="color: #212529;">York University v.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)</span></i><span style="color: #212529;">, 2021 SCC 32 (CanLII), <</span></span><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jh8bc" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #00b050; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://canlii.ca/t/jh8bc</span></a></span></b><span style="color: #212529;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">></span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In a complex proceeding, namely Federal
Court T-326-18, the parties have agreed that the main issues are as follows;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Issue #1</span></i></b><b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">:
Have the Plaintiffs been licensees from 2013 onwards? </span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(If
so, the Plaintiffs shall pay the Access Copyright tariff in respect of the
years in which they were licensees; if not, Issue #2 must be determined). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Issue #2</span></i></b><b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">:
If not, are the Plaintiffs nevertheless liable in equity to pay Access
Copyright? </span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(If so, the Plaintiffs shall pay the
Access Copyright tariff in respect of the years in which equity bound them; if
not, Issue #3 must be determined). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Issue #3</span></i></b><b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">:
If not, is Access Copyright entitled to retain the 2010-12 overpayment in any
event? </span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(If not, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
a refund of overpaid royalties).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The case will be heard by way of
“summary trial” on October 10, 2023 for seven days – which is interesting given
the voluminous record and the lengthy proceedings to date. Those interested in observing
can request to login virtually using this link:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists"><span style="color: #00b050;">https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists</span></a><span style="color: #00b050;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">and doing a search for file # T-326-18.
The request should be made soon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There are some prominent counsel
involved. This should be worth watching.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK<o:p></o:p></span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-17130567231092151362023-08-08T14:18:00.005-04:002023-08-08T21:39:26.176-04:00Access Copyright’s Conspicuous Copyright Canards as Enabled and Empowered by the Globe and Mail<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a8e87a_cce98e21bda34c4fa41cf1ff477b6137~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_600,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_auto/a8e87a_cce98e21bda34c4fa41cf1ff477b6137~mv2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="293" src="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a8e87a_cce98e21bda34c4fa41cf1ff477b6137~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_600,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_auto/a8e87a_cce98e21bda34c4fa41cf1ff477b6137~mv2.jpg" width="293" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/canard">(Canard)</a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 17.12px;">The Globe and Mail has recently published three misleading and seriously inaccurate opinion pieces about Canadian copyright law from authors who should know better, given their backgrounds. They are from </span><a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-fair-deal-for-canada-on-fair-dealing.html"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 17.12px; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Kate Taylor dated May 26, 2023</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 17.12px; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-canadas-new-culture-minister-will-have-to-tackle-tech-bullies-and/#comments"><span style="color: #00b050;">August 2, 2023</span></a> </span></b></span><span style="line-height: 17.12px;">and </span><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-we-need-copyright-reform-now/"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 17.12px; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Hugh Stephens, July 15, 2023</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 17.12px; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">. </span></b></span><span>One might have expected better basic fact checking from what is supposedly Canada’s “national newspaper” and/or “newspaper of record” of conspicuous copyright canards.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Both
authors advocate for changing Canada’s copyright law to impose potentially great
mandatory costs on the post-secondary education (“PSE”) sector in favour the
very controversial and arguably obsolete organization known as Access Copyright
(“AC”), which purports to collect royalties for the reproduction of its members
works by organizations such as governments and PSE institutions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Stephen’s opinion piece conveniently
follows up just two days later on the announcement by Access Copyright (“AC”)
that it was </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.accesscopyright.ca/media/announcements/canadian-writers-visual-artists-and-publishers-lose-the-ability-to-have-their-rights-and-interests-protected-as-federal-government-fails-to-deliver-on-its-promise-to-fix-canada-s-publishing-marketplace/"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">downsizing and restructuring</span></b></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">. </span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This all seems to be highly orchestrated by AC.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> And Yahoo News <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>republished </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coalition-cultural-organizations-representing-over-141200436.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">a pathetic press release</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span lang="EN-US">from Access Copyright.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Both
the Globe and Mail and the National Post have failed to respond to my op-ed
submissions. Maybe they both are myopically sympathetic to the copyright
maximalists? Have these bastions of Canadian Main Stream Media (“MSM”) drunk
too much of the copyright Kool-Aid? How independent or professional is the
Canadian MSM anymore? The glory days of Canadian op-ed pieces in MSM sadly ended
a long time ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">AC
has indeed seen its revenues drop since 2012 but falsely blames this on the
purely coincidental amendment that year of the fair dealing provisions of
Canada’s <i>Copyright Act</i> that added the word “education”. However, there
is no factual or legal basis to suggest that this amendment has had anything whatsoever
to do with AC’s deservedly declining fortunes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
users’ fair dealing rights relied on by the PSE sector have been in place for
more than a century since at least 1921 and have been affirmed and confirmed by
numerous judicial decisions, including four from the Supreme Court of Canada since
2004. These include two from 2012 and one from 2021 that were not based on the
2012 amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Americans have seen “fair use” (counterpart to “fair dealing”) rights hardwired
into their law since 1976 for “</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">teaching </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1496914075-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span color="windowtext" lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">(including </span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">multiple</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-2024104691-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span color="windowtext" lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> copies </span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">for classroom use), scholarship, or
research…”. There</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> is
no reason for Canadian educators and students to be at a comparative
disadvantage to their American counterparts, especially when American
publishers are perhaps the main driving force behind AC. Moreover, Americans
would choke at the socialist notion of “mandatory” copyright tariffs, which
Canada’s Supreme Court categorically rejected in 2021 based in large measure on
my submissions on behalf of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Since
2012, the Canadian PSE sector has been </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.carl-abrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CARL-ABRC_Stats_Pub_2018-19.pdf"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">spending far
more and far smarter</span></a></span></b></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> on fair payments for authors by way of licences,
acquisitions of print or digital material, and targeted procedures to ensure
that deserving authors get actually paid. AC is arguably the worst possible
vehicle to ensure such payments. Its non-transparent repertoire is mostly
irrelevant in the PSE sector. Former U of T Dean of law Marin Friedland exposed
the problems of AC’s methodology in 2007 and there has been <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no apparent evidence of improvement. The
bottom line is that AC has long ceased to offer any useful value for its PSE
licences. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
kind of changes that that AC and its supporters are calling for may very well
be not only unwise but also unconstitutional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Education, as well as property and civil rights, are provincial
jurisdiction. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the federal Charter. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">What
Lies Ahead<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We
have just had a cabinet shuffle. Sadly, shamefully, and for no apparent reason
other than cynical electoral optimization, the Hon. David Lametti, Minister of
Justice, has been dumped out of cabinet by PM Justin Trudeau. While copyright
was never directly part of Lametti’s portfolio, he was by far the most legally
learned member of the current Government and Minister of Justice for a very
long time. His potentially moderating and deeply informed influence will be
missed. Ms. Taylor has implied that his expertise in copyright may have led to
him being pushed from cabinet. She writes: “Coincidentally, another cabinet
change might help get the job done. Publishing insiders have long suspected one
roadblock was former justice minister David Lametti, known as a supporter of
so-called users’ rights."</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-size: 15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Prior to his public service, he</span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> was a highly respected academic at
McGill law school and certainly a leading expert in copyright, as I know from
working with him on an important Supreme Court of Canada case just before he
was elected in 2015 and even long before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And
we now have </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascale_St-Onge"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Pascale St-Onge</span></b></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> replacing Pablo Rodriguez as Heritage Minister. Her CV will play out
very well in Quebec, from whence all of Trudeau’s previous Heritage Ministers
have not coincidentally hailed. She and Trudeau are plainly pandering to a
Quebec audience first and foremost. However, if Minister St-Onge is well
advised, she will realize that copyright law is not a Quebec based hill or bill
to die on. She might wish to ask Sheila Copps, Sarmite Bulte, and others about
that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
other responsible minister, who actually should be primarily in charge of copyright
law and policy, is F-P Champagne of Innovation, Science and Industry. He has
apparently been missing in action on this file but remains in place in cabinet.
He may be mindful that the copyright file is presumptively toxic and is best avoided,
if possible, especially for someone who may have leadership aspirations. AC is
now targeting him in a mass email to its affiliates, <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.accesscopyright.ca/media/news/coalition-of-cultural-organizations-representing-over-50-000-canadian-writers-visual-artists-and-publishers-calls-on-minister-st-onge-to-engage-with-fran%C3%A7ois-philippe-champagne-minister-of-innovation-science-and-industry/"><span style="color: #00b050;">on its website</span></a></span></b></span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and doubtlessly directly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sadly,
we will likely see policy on these issues dictated by “kids in short pants” at
the PMO and even the apparently too politicized PCO – who have little or no
substantive expertise and only care about politics and career aspirations. We could
see a replay of Bill C-18 with some kind of bogus superficial “adjacent’ or “neighouring
right” pretext for forcing a mandatory tariff for rights that don’t exist onto
the PSE sector, to be paid for by Canadian provinces and ultimately Canadian
students. The financial cost could be huge and the chill on Canadian education,
research and private study ultimately even more costly. All this to enable Access
Copyright to spend a fortune on salaries, lawyers, lobbyists – and to
distribute what amounts to once-a-year lunch money to many if not most of its creator
affiliates?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">For
better or worse, there is no sign that anyone, such as Google, is going to challenge
the constitutionality of Bill C-18 in court, even though very credible
commentators such as Konrad von Finckenstein and Phillip Palmer </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://cartt.ca/commentary-is-the-online-news-act-constitutional/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">have done so in writing.</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Above
all, the educational sector and other user groups need to step up to the plate.
Universities Canada has failed to provide satisfactory leadership on copyright
for at least three decades. Hopefully, this could change with a new president –
but I’m not holding my breath. U of T’s revised fair dealing guidelines are a
step backwards. Canada’s “U15” group of leading research universities needs to speak
forcefully. We need to see the PSE academy and responsible smaller
organizations with less resources but more insight, ability, and agility step
forward and write their own op-eds (assuming the MSM might publish them), do
their own effective lobbying (i.e. actually meeting with Ministers), and
develop their own updated fair dealing guidelines. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Howard
Knopf is a policy provocateur who, after 43 years, is no longer “practising
law”. He has argued four very influential interventions in copyright cases in
the Supreme Court of Canada. He is an active blogger on copyright and related
issues and is an affiliate of Access Copyright.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-62126733616890151762023-07-26T17:25:00.002-04:002023-07-27T15:37:30.830-04:00The Shrill Shrieking of Access Copyright and the Coming Copyright Confrontation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Captain_copyright.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="265" data-original-width="377" height="265" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Captain_copyright.jpg" width="377" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Copyright"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Captain Copyright ~ 2006)</span></span></a></span></b></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For the second time in recent weeks, the Globe Mail – supposedly Canada’s “newspaper of record” - has published highly misleading and embarrassingly over the top op eds from authors who really should know better, given their notable backgrounds. No doubt they mean well and aren’t beholden to Access Copyright – but their opinions are so over the top and poorly informed that they have a very bad look:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-fair-deal-for-canada-on-fair-dealing.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Kate Taylor, May 26,
2023</span></a></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-we-need-copyright-reform-now/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hugh Stephens, July 15,
2023</span></a></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Hugh
Stephens’ opinion piece conveniently follows up just two days later on the
announcement by Access Copyright (“AC”) that it was </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.accesscopyright.ca/media/announcements/canadian-writers-visual-artists-and-publishers-lose-the-ability-to-have-their-rights-and-interests-protected-as-federal-government-fails-to-deliver-on-its-promise-to-fix-canada-s-publishing-marketplace/"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">downsizing and restructuring</span></a></span></b></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">.</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And
this, from the shrill </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://quillandquire.com/omni/the-future-of-access-copyright-and-the-dire-implications-for-the-canadian-publishing-industry/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Quill and Quire piece dated
July 19, 2023.</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">First,
let’s get some big misunderstandings (including what some might say are “big
lies”, but I presume no deliberate intent to prevaricate or be mendacious) off
the table. More detail follows below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">AC
does NOT collect for the mainstream of creators whose works are used in the
Post Secondary Education (“PSE”) sector. It is believed to mainly represent
authors of Canadian literature, which is a fringe area overall in the curricula
of the PSE sector. AC’s actual repertoire remains something of an impenetrable
black hole. Full disclosure – I’m a member and earn enough for one very modest
lunch a year – which is more than some serious academic friends of mine.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">AC’s
incompetence and inability to fairly distribute its revenues to its creators
has been known and documented for a long time, most famously in the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/38447543/Friedland-Access-Copyright-Report-February-15-2007"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">2007 report by Martin Friedland</span></b>,</a> former Dean
of U of T Law School. There is no apparent reason to believe that things have significantly
improved since then.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
decline in AC revenues over the last 11 years had NOTHING to do with the 2012
legislation that added the word “education” to s. 29 of the <i>Copyright Act</i>.
The users’ fair dealing rights relied on by the PSE sector have been in place for
more than a century since at least 1921 and have been affirmed and confirmed by
countless judicial decisions, including four from the Supreme Court of Canada
between 2004 and 2021, including the two of the 2012 “pentalogy” decisions and
the 2021 York decision, that were not based the 2012 amendment.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
basic right of “fair use” (American counterpart to fair dealing) has been
hardwired into US law since 1976, i.e. “</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">teaching </span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1496914075-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span style="background: white; color: #001c72;">(including </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">multiple</span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-2024104691-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span style="background: white; color: #001c72;"> copies </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">for classroom use), scholarship, or
research”. See </span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="file:///D:/blog/teaching%20(including%20multiple%20copies%20for%20classroom%20use),%20scholarship,%20or%20research,"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">17 USC 107</span></a>.</span></b></span> T<span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">here is no imaginable reason for Canadian
educators and students to be at a comparative disadvantage to their American
counterparts, especially when American publishers are a driving force – maybe
even the main driving force - behind AC.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Since
2012, the Canadian PSE sector has been spending far more and far smarter on
fair payment for authors by way of licenses of various kinds, acquisitions of
print or digital material, and targeted procedures to ensure that deserving
authors get paid. </span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.carl-abrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CARL-ABRC_Stats_Pub_2018-19.pdf"><span style="background: white;">See this</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">, for example, from CARL. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s just that AC is apparently the worst
possible vehicle to ensure such payment. We don’t use a stagecoach anymore to
get from Ottawa to Toronto – and there are no “mandatory tariffs” that require
using one source or method of getting to there from here – especially via stagecoach.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">AC was
born and nourished by a sweetheart deal with the Federal Treasury Board in 80’s.
It has been protected since then by the Feds the Copyright Board – but any justification
for such protection, if it ever existed, has long expired. </span></li><li><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
bottom line is that AC offers virtually no value at any price for its PSE
licenses. And, of course, these “licences” are NOT MANDATORY.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Some
History:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Once
upon a time Access Copyright was known as CanCopy – until I and others inspired
by former York University President Harry Arthurs - nicknamed it “Can’t Copy” –
which was much more accurate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">My
own blog is called Excess Copyright – a name inspired by Access Copyright.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Well,
it seems that “excess” has not served Access Copyright (“AC”) very well. AC has
excessively overreached with respect to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Demanding excessive FTE payments for PSE students</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Blaming the Conservative government for the 2012
(“Copyright Modernization Act” “CMA”) amendment that added the word “education”
to the fair dealing purposes in the Copyright Act</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Blaming the Liberal Government for not undoing this
innocuous amendment, which has not resulted in any extension of users’ fair
dealing rights not already explicitly blessed by three Supreme Court of Canada
(“SCC”) decisions based on the law prior to the CMA</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Purporting to have actual repertoire that is of any
significance overall on the PSE system. AC’s actual repertoire – which is
anything but transparent – is believed to consist mainly of Canadian
literature. Such repertoire plays a minimal role in the PSE sector. Very few university
and college graduates will ever be required to read Margaret Atwood, Alice
Munroe or lesser literary luminaries in the course of their studies</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Purporting to collect and remit payments for foreign repertoire
</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Refusing to meaningfully engage in transactional
licenses, which are often successfully obtained from Acs overall more
reasonable cousin in the USA, namely the Copyright Clearance Center</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Barking noisily with no teeth to bite. Remember that
AC has no standing to sue anyone for copyright infringement, since it is neither
an assignee nor exclusive licensee of anyone. This was explicitly confirmed by
the SCC in 2021 in the York case.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Once
upon a time, AC was able to convince universities to hold their noses and pay a
$3.38 FTE cost and offload the $0.10 per page “course pack” charge directly to
students. Of course, paper course packs have gone the way of the horse and
buggy. Moreover, the legally questionable “indemnity” that AC once offered that
was an incentive to that dubious business model has long since been unavailable.
I </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/56602182/Knopf-Alternative-to-CanCopy-Collective-1999"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">pointed out 24 years ago</span></a></span></b></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050;"> </span></b></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">that</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> AC never has been a licensed
insurance company.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%;">It will be recalled that for 2011-2013 AC
wanted a <b><u>mandatory</u></b> FTE tariff to be set by the
Copyright Board of </span><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;">(a)<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal;"></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;"> </span></b><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/20803105/6212673361689015176"><span style="color: #00b050;">$45.00CAD for Universities; or (b) $35.00 CAD for all
other Educational Institutions.</span></a></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">As
AC excessively escalated its litigation strategy by then suing York University
to enforce its “interim” tariff improvidently provided by the Copyright Board,
from which no judicial review was sought due to the strategy of AUCC (now
Universities Canada). While AUCC and York continued to spend money and go
nowhere, some institutions realized that there was no need and no point in
spending lots of money for little or no value. Ariel Katz started in his “hall
of fame” and “hall of shame” list. He and I blogged at length about why tariffs
should not be mandatory.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ariel
and I, along with a very smart young law professor named David Lametti, who
later became Minister of Justice, made the prevailing arguments in the SCC in
the 2015 case of </span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
<i><span style="color: #212529;">Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. SODRAC 2003 Inc.,</span></i><span style="color: #212529;"> 2015 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 615, <</span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/gm8b0"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">https://canlii.ca/t/gm8b0</span></a></span></b></span><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">> namely that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">[<a name="par113">113</a>] I find that licences fixed by the Board do not have
mandatory binding force over a user; the Board has the statutory authority to
fix the terms of licences pursuant to s. 70.2, but a user retains the ability
to decide whether to become a licensee and operate pursuant to that licence, or
to decline.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">That message did not,
however, sink in to AC, AUCC or York. Instead, after years more of unnecessary
litigation, during which York unnecessarily and unwisely “bet the farm” on the
very poor AUCC fair dealing guidelines, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the SCC finally made it sufficiently explicit
that AC’s tariffs are NOT MANDATORY in the PSE sector or elsewhere. Naturally,
where tariffs are <i>de facto</i> in contrast to <i>de jure</i> mandatory, e.g.
SOCAN tariffs for radio and TV stations, users will still keep on paying and
the Copyright Board will hopefully do a much better job than it has done in
recent decades of adjudicating any disagreements quickly and correctly.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Fast
forward to the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="file:///D:/blog/DeSantis%20Offers%20Campaign%20Staff%20Opportunity%20to%20Work%20for%20Free%20in%20Exchange%20for%20Invaluable%20Skills"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">landmark SCC York decision
in 2021</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> wherein York University very nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of
victory but finally after 8 years fully and frontally faced the “mandatory
tariff” and brought in the highly charismatic and ultra competent barrister Guy
Pratte to adequately make the argument, at least on the “mandatory” issue, that
York had effectively sidestepped before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">With
all due credit to Mr. Pratte, my client CARL deserves full credit for
empowering me to make the finally prevailing argument that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Tariffs aren’t mandatory</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Because the tariff isn’t mandatory, there was no live controversy
about fair dealing that required the SCC to look at the bad AUCC/Universities
Canada/York fair dealing guidelines devised by AUCC’s counsel years earlier.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">While not necessary, the SCC at our behest did comment
on some of the more egregious errors in the Courts below, e.g. re aggregate copyright.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ariel
Katz made his own supportive intervention that helped carry the day, ably
presented by Sana Halwani.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Americans
would shake their heads in total disbelief at the notion of a “mandatory tariff”,
which would be a poorly disguised Canadian subsidy masquerading somehow as an
authors’ “right” – like that $0.29 per blank CD we are forced to pay due to
Copyright Board impotence (to be charitable) to prop up another long due for
extinction collective, namely the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.cpcc.ca/en/the-cpcc"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CPCC.</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Canada
throws billions in subsidies at Volkswagen & Stellantis that will likely go
down the toilet even if the EV bubble doesn’t burst soon given the competition
from far more productive and efficient sources in China, Thailand or eve the
USA….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Warning
for Ministers<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Do
not pander to noisy demands from Quebec, where the mantra that more copyright
is always better has caused mischief and damage for decades. If the Quebec
government wants to shovel money at COPIBEC, let them. There is no reason for
this folly to spread throughout Canada at the federal level.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Speaking
of the federal level, the kind of changes that that AC and its supporters are
calling for may very well be unconstitutional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Education and property and civil rights are provincial jurisdiction.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Charter. There are many other
issues. Proceed at your peril.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Liberal
governments have tended to pander to copyright maximalists. But this hasn’t
always had good results in either policy or politics. Ask Sheila Copps and
Sarmite Bulte, for example.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">What
Lies Ahead<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
current campaign of Access Copyright – and its gullible and shrill supporters ranging
from Kate Taylor and Hugh Stephens to the usual </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://publishingperspectives.com/2023/07/rights-edition-canadas-crisis-triggers-downsizing-at-access-copyright/"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">and much <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>less credible
suspects</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> – should be disregarded by Government as the highly orchestrated public
interest scam that it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And
now <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>– we just now have had a cabinet
shuffle. Sadly, Hon. David Lametti – Minister of Justice – is out. While
copyright was never directly part of his portfolio, he was by far the most
legally learned member of the previous Cabinet – or any cabinet for a very long
time. His potentially moderating influence may be missed. He was certainly very
knowledgeable about copyright – and was, as noted above, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>involved in the important <i>CBC v. SODRAC</i>
case that resulted in an important SCC decision that led up to the 2021 York decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And
we now have </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascale_St-Onge"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Pascale St-Onge</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span lang="EN-US">replacing Pablo Rodriguez as Heritage
Minister. Her qualifications for this job include that she is from Quebec, played
bass in a punk rock band, is the first out lesbian minister in Trudeau’s cabinet
and was Minister of Sport. That’s enough to play out very well in Quebec, which
is ultra-important to this government. Meanwhile, Pablo Rodriguez – who has
left her with a huge mess – remains Quebec Lieutenant and is now, inexplicably,
Minister of Transport. If Minister St-Onge is well advised, she will realize
that copyright law is not a hill to die on. She might wish to ask Sheila Copps,
Sarmite Bulte, and others about that. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
other minister, who should historically be primarily responsible for copyright
law and policy, is FP Champagne of ISED, who remains in place. H may be mindful
that the copyright file is presumptively toxic and is best avoided at all
costs, especially for someone who may have leadership aspirations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We
wait in trepidation to see what the PMO will tell these ministers to do in <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>new mandate letters. The unfortunate breakdown
of the old cabinet system and the centralization of policy making in a politicized
and non-expert PMO means that professional public servants – whose policy
influence has declined precipitously since the days of Pierre Trudeau – will be
of little significance other than to make the PMO’s wishes their command.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Above
all, the PSE sector and other use groups need to step up to the plate. Universities
Canada cannot be counted upon for leadership. It has failed badly on this file
for three decades – and particularly in the most recent. U of T’s new fair
dealing guidelines are a major step backwards and are disappointing to most
informed observers in the PSE sector. The retirement of U of T’s former general
counsel Steve Moate has been a setback for balance and leadership within the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.mcgill.ca/skills21/what-skills21/phase-1-development/u15-canadian-universities"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">influential “U15”</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> group of leading Canadian research universities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In
searching for a new President, Universities Canada now has an opportunity to
show more competence and leadership on these issues than it has in the las in
the last three decades or so. Let us hope that that the right person can be
found. However, this recruitment could take a while and the resulting course
correction much longer in turn.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We
need to see the responsible smaller organizations with less resources but more
insight and ability step forward and write their own op-eds, do their own effective
lobbying (i.e. meeting with Ministers), and develop their own updated fair
dealing guidelines. Their silence after that Kate Taylor travesty was deafening.
I believe </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">that <a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-fair-deal-for-canada-on-fair-dealing.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I was the only one who
stepped forward</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> and that was purely in my personal capacity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We
need to see a response to all of these big lies. Otherwise, given the absence
of any competent ministerial leadership, we could be facing an impending
debacle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>HPK</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>PS:
A reminder that I was involved in litigation regarding Access Copyright and
the CPCC for a long time. However, I am now “not practicing law”.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-39469735600091242372023-06-27T14:23:00.002-04:002023-07-22T12:12:14.389-04:00My ABC Copyright "Valedictory"<p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1419; display: inline; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; white-space-collapse: preserve;">On 16/6/2023 I was honoured to give a keynote "Valedictory" address to the </span><a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/ABCCopyright" role="link" style="border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; color: #1d9bf0; cursor: pointer; display: inline; font: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; white-space: inherit;">ABCCopyright</a> <span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 17px; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="color: #0f1419;"> conference.<b> </b></span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/654765102/Howard-Knopf-ABC-Presentation-June-16-2023-Final-Show "><b><span style="color: #38761d;">Here are my slides</span>.</b></a><span style="color: #0f1419;"> I hope I have encouraged some "militant librarians". Get ready for a major counterattack in fall re mandatory tariffs & fair dealing. </span></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCvo2gTF3cBJRodtWR9jm6BnNnolSBibI8KOUPlWhHVQM3RNGDYztAWI8kYC6kXnvX3K21FY9jlTzuytn-sqs7vqendsMaNoKt6sinevirhVUK98y5pLw74kyl7YjpmqNGKgonagYKsoG2i3iKKH9aYwR0xoX8Vu3Xt43GXZgTLk_0smiW5UtJ6A/s457/militant%201.png" style="background-color: white; font-family: TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="456" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCvo2gTF3cBJRodtWR9jm6BnNnolSBibI8KOUPlWhHVQM3RNGDYztAWI8kYC6kXnvX3K21FY9jlTzuytn-sqs7vqendsMaNoKt6sinevirhVUK98y5pLw74kyl7YjpmqNGKgonagYKsoG2i3iKKH9aYwR0xoX8Vu3Xt43GXZgTLk_0smiW5UtJ6A/w215-h216/militant%201.png" width="215" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh83W3QoYRTNlmTKowlrHCTAFm-e44tlIbn9Cpc7KnSX-KUQmNKT6PgovdRLDCy1gFRCdacOZ0P5zxGFUoZwKdCyc-l466YOu1p4AEevflEtlH2P4XIyDK1JYsZXoLIWoT7dOeL_idoGF3Gtvt6_eOgcy-xYYAVWqd3c44QELHpnwwvInkd1q46MA/s457/militant%202.jpg" style="background-color: white; font-family: TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="456" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh83W3QoYRTNlmTKowlrHCTAFm-e44tlIbn9Cpc7KnSX-KUQmNKT6PgovdRLDCy1gFRCdacOZ0P5zxGFUoZwKdCyc-l466YOu1p4AEevflEtlH2P4XIyDK1JYsZXoLIWoT7dOeL_idoGF3Gtvt6_eOgcy-xYYAVWqd3c44QELHpnwwvInkd1q46MA/w221-h222/militant%202.jpg" width="221" /></a></p><p><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 17px; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /><span style="color: #0f1419;">HPK</span></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-size: 17px; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-49366951204932692452023-06-12T13:06:00.002-04:002023-06-18T16:14:50.599-04:00Blacklock’s Day of Reckoning?<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjY8LeGqYWRzHXmna9R13lfz58rSP7hc3SAjbiUny-q_vdDlfu-kBOutPTT7V99_zciRzktIcMRff5a4wTmzpy_ItD-M3AnFtd6tov3wjMAPS68x_nGU6RyLgufcUp3nKyDfmf8cTTIOwWtok5MKsfGoBAVTt6IbPQjLkqt63wwt7DUBQS-fdE" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="193" data-original-width="960" height="64" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjY8LeGqYWRzHXmna9R13lfz58rSP7hc3SAjbiUny-q_vdDlfu-kBOutPTT7V99_zciRzktIcMRff5a4wTmzpy_ItD-M3AnFtd6tov3wjMAPS68x_nGU6RyLgufcUp3nKyDfmf8cTTIOwWtok5MKsfGoBAVTt6IbPQjLkqt63wwt7DUBQS-fdE" width="320" /></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Blacklocks.ca)</span><br /><br /></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">For
over nine years, Blacklock’s has pursued a remarkably determined litigation strategy
that has involved nearly two dozen Federal Court lawsuits, including 13 against
the Federal Government and its agencies. Its efforts against the Federal
Government have been notably unsuccessful and none of its efforts against other
parties have resulted in any successful legal precedents from Blacklock’s
standpoint. On June 7-9, 2023, the Federal Court heard a summary judgment
motion brought by the Government with a public interest intervention by CIPPIC
that could bring this litany of litigation to the end. The motion was heard by Justice Yvan Roy, a
very thorough and experienced judge. and his decision is pending.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I’ve
written about Blacklock’s litigation many times before. See <b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/search?q=blacklock%27s&max-results=20&by-date=true"><span style="color: #00b050;">here.</span></a></span></b><span style="color: #00b050;"> </span>I
don’t normally comment on cases where judgment is pending – but this is an exception
that calls out for comment because of its public interest importance and its
unique long history.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”) was represented by its counsel, Alexander
Gay. Blacklock’s was represented by Scott Miller of MBM. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The intervener on behalf of the public
interest was CIPPIC, represented by James Plotkin of Gowlings. These are all very
experienced counsel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here
are some brief point form observations based on the written material in the
case. I did not actually attend the hearing, which was held “live” and was not
virtual or hybrid, so it was not available via Zoom:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">A
very important case – as shown by the unusually great role of intervener CIPPIC
in terms of length of memo (20 pages) and time – and hour and then extended.
Indeed, having resisted CIPPIC’s involvement, Blacklock’s ultimately engaged –
with an 18-page response of CIPPIC’s important public interest submissions</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No
hacking or decrypting involved here</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No
evidence of any attempt to “</span><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">descramble a scrambled work or decrypt
an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair</span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> the technological protection measure” (highlight added)</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
law does NOT clearly cover simple sharing of a simple password in the definition
of “circumvent” found in s. 41</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No mention in legislation
of the word or concept of “to share”</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Just
sharing of simple lawfully acquired password by a government worker so she could
do her research job and collaborate with colleagues</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No
evidence of actual copyright infringement or other listed examples of circumvention</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No expert evidence that
the TPM was “effective”</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Like
sharing a hotel pass key with family members - or alarm system password with renovation
contractors or cleaning staff, who then shares it with their employees or subcontractors?</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Even
if there somehow was “circumvention” in this case, is it trumped by any absence
of evidence of infringing reproduction or, very importantly, trumped by “fair
dealing”?</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">No
piracy – this is not about getting free movies or music – it’s about government
engaging in perfectly legal fair dealing…</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In
any case, there is an important previous ruling in 2016 that Government’s use
of Blacklock material was clearly “fair dealing.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There was a strong finding
of fair dealing on the part of Government that public servants were just doing
their research as allowed by the <i>Copyright Act</i>….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">1395804
Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 1255 (CanLII), [2017] 2 FCR
256, <</span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/gvrbx" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">https://canlii.ca/t/gvrbx</span></a></span></b></span><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">[</span>33<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">] I am satisfied that the
Department’s acknowledged use of the two Blacklock’s articles constituted fair
dealing. There is no question that the circulation of this news copy within the
Department was done for a proper research purpose. There is also no question
that the admitted scope of use was, in the circumstances, fair.</span></i><i><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-prop-change: "Howard Knopf" 20230612T1058;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Blacklock’s could have, should have,
but didn’t plead circumvention at the time and are now trying with a new
counsel to do so in numerous lawsuits against 13 other Federal Government departments
and agencies and presumably many others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-prop-change: "Howard Knopf" 20230612T1058;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">BTW, here is the applicable definition
of “circumvent”:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="definition" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><dfn><b><span style="color: #333333;">circumvent</span></b></dfn><span style="color: #333333;"> means,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="paragraph" id="104110" style="background: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 90.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 8.4pt; margin: 8.4pt 0cm 6pt 90pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="lawlabel"><b><span style="color: black;">(a)</span></b></span></span><span style="color: #333333;"> in respect of a technological protection measure
within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition <dfn style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">technological
protection measure</span></dfn>, <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to
otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair</span> the technological
protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner…</span><span class="lawlabel"><span style="color: black;">(highlight added)</span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-prop-change: "Howard Knopf" 20230612T1058;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There is great interest in this case
and the outcome is eagerly awaited. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK</span></p><p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-50635112270790359022023-05-30T15:04:00.008-04:002024-03-15T20:23:59.801-04:00The Great Bill C-18 Constitutional Gamble and “The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo”<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="267" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EPn9EVhVX6M" width="321" youtube-src-id="EPn9EVhVX6M"></iframe></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/441/Government/C-18/C-18_3/C-18_3.PDF"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Bill C-18</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
(the so-called “Online News Act”), which is often referred to as the “link tax”
bill, is very likely unconstitutional. There's been an excellent analysis of
several reasons </span><a href="https://cartt.ca/commentary-is-the-online-news-act-constitutional/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">why this is
the case by Konrad von Finckenstein and Phillip Palmer</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,
whose joint and several expertise is quite formidable. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">These learned authors mention copyright
and seem to acknowledge a possible connection to copyright – but I would go
farther and add one more potentially final nail to the C-18 constitutional
coffin. This involves copyright law. I would contend that there is not and cannot
be any possible connection to copyright law. The bill has a few references to
copyright that are either ill-conceived or perhaps included as Machiavellian
tethers to support some sort of connection to constitutional mooring. Absent
any valid connection to copyright law, where is the federal jurisdiction to be
found?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In
Canada there is no copyright in a “title” or headline as such or a short
snippet not comprising a “substantial part” of the article. Thus, the issue of
fair dealing doesn’t even arise & the reference to the Copyright Act is a
constitutional red herring. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Also,
a hyperlink by itself is not “publication”. It’s just a modern and more
convenient form of the traditional footnote. It is the fundamental raison
d'être of the internet. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">One of my very favorite copyright cases
of all time is that of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/gwb38"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth
Century Fox Corp. Ltd. et al.,</span></i></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> 1939 CanLII
276 (UK JCPC), a Privy Council decision from the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright,_Baron_Wright"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">legendary Lord
Wright</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> that involved alleged copyright
infringement in Canada. In a nutshell, the case involved a movie entitled “The Man
Who Broke The Bank At Monte Carlo” and a song written earlier with the same
title. Other than the title, there was nothing in common between the two works.
The Privy Council held that there cannot be copyright in a title because it is
not a sufficiently substantial work of authorship.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Privy Council also indicated that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In this
connection regard must be had <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">to s. 3 of the Act of 1921 which defines copyright as the "right
to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof."</span> <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">The definition (v) does not, in
their Lordships' judgment, mean that the title of a work is to be deemed to be
a separate and independent "work." Work is to include "the title
thereof," that is to say, the title is to be treated as part of the work,
provided that it is original and distinctive whatever these words may connote<u>.
When that definition is read with s. 3, the result is that to copy the title
constitutes infringement only when what is copied is a substantial part of the
work</u>.</span> This view would agree in effect with what was said by Jessel
M.R. in Dick v. Yates (supra) in the words quoted above and would apply to a
case such as a title covering a whole page of original matter, or something of
that nature, but would not justify such a wide extension of copyright as the
appellant company has contended for, or the holding of McEvoy J. on this point.
It is said that so to construe the definition is to treat it as adding nothing
to the law. But the definition may have been inserted to settle doubts and to
avoid it being said that in no circumstances could a title receive protection.
In any event their Lordships do not think that the new definition (y) entitles
the appellants to succeed in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(at p. 359 of</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/gwb38"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></i><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">report</span></b></a></span><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">)
</span></i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(highlight and underline added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Thus, any reliance on the notion that Google,
or other Digital News Intermediaries (“DNIs”), are infringing copyright by
reproducing the title (i.e. headline) of an article is ridiculous. The “Monte
Carlo” decision is just as relevant to Canadian law today as it was 84 years
ago. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Even the inclusion of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a one or two sentence “snippet” from an
article would presumably not entail application of the <i>Copyright Act</i>
because it would likely not be a “substantial part” of the article and would
thus not even need justification as fair dealing – which only is necessary if a
“substantial part” is reproduced. Google News simply does not reproduce whole
articles or substantial parts thereof. It long ago stopped providing even
“snippets” and now just provides headlines.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Thus, the references in sections 23 to
26 to copyright are simply a red herring. The reference to the Copyright Board
about a possible tariff is simply beyond absurd. Given the Boards historical inability
to deal correctly with much simpler and more lucid legislative provisions, and
its record of taking many years to decide cases and inevitably then retroactively
and often wrongly, the notion of a Copyright Board “tariff” dealing with
headlines of news articles is simply cringeworthy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And, of course, links are no more than a
modern and more convenient form of classical footnotes. The act of linking to
an article without more is simply not “publication” and to legislate otherwise would threaten the very viability of the internet, as the SCC ruled a long time ago in </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Crookes v. Newton</span></i></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="color: #212529;">2011 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 269:</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">[<a name="par36">36</a>]<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> <b>The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to
information without hyperlinks</b>. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting
them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously
restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of
expression.</span> <b><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">The
potential “chill” in how the Internet functions could be devastating, since
primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to
another article over whose changeable content they have no control. Given
the core significance of the role of hyperlinking to the Internet, we risk
impairing its whole functioning</span></b>. Strict application of the
publication rule in these circumstances would be like trying to fit a square
archaic peg into the hexagonal hole of modernity.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(highlight
and emphasis added)</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Thus, there is no rational connection
between Bill C-18 and copyright law as we know it in Canada. Any desperate
reference to the concept of “neighbouring rights” based upon some civil law
based European approach is also a non-starter in Canada, absent a major and
likely unconstitutional amendment to the <i>Copyright Act</i>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The only reason to include the references
to copyright in Bill C-18 was presumably to somehow tenuously tether it to a
constitutional lynch pin. I would be dismayed if government officials were
unaware of this fictitious foundation. Apparently, however, they are doing what
officials tend to do – which is to try to rescue their Minister’s misguided and
politically based missions and to get them across the finish line through
Parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If this should happen with Bill C-18,
one hopes that Google would challenge it in the courts. However, Google’s
policy strategies have become increasingly opaque in recent years. Moreover,
its litigation strategy that effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of
victory in the SCC in the 2017 Equustek case was and remains very puzzling.
<span style="background: white; color: #0f1419;">See </span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/h4jg3"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Google
Inc. v. Equustek</span></i></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, 2017 SCC 34.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #0f1419;">Hopefully,
Google will handle this and other possible constitutional issues, such as
of whether it operates "a search engine or social media service, that is
subject to the legislative authority of Parliament", more effectively than
it dealt with the Equustek case in the SCC. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Although I am “not practicing law”
these days, I would be willing to elaborate on the above in the Senate hearings
as a policy provocateur if asked.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-65419060115081615712023-05-26T14:34:00.003-04:002023-05-28T15:14:11.568-04:00A Fair Deal for Canada on Fair Dealing<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/AYmnAUmSBkSkceRIb1mdZN0s0pw=/600x400/filters:quality(80):format(jpeg)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/tgam/66f1da5f-c8ad-4083-85d4-2d99f4754d5a.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="184" src="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/AYmnAUmSBkSkceRIb1mdZN0s0pw=/600x400/filters:quality(80):format(jpeg)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/tgam/66f1da5f-c8ad-4083-85d4-2d99f4754d5a.JPG" width="276" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Kate Taylor - Globe and Mai</span>l</div><p></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;">The recent sadly and badly </span><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-copyright-loophole-for-education-should-be-plugged/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">misinformed “opinion” dated May 20, 2023 by veteran Globe and
Mail cultural columnist Kate Taylor entitled “Copyright loophole for education
should be plugged”</span></b></a><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></b><span style="line-height: 107%;"> highlights the need for the educational sector
to step up to the plate on fair dealing and copyright revision. Her “opinion”, which
some might mistake for journalism given her </span><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/kate-taylor/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">34 year tenure</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%;"> with the Globe
and Mail (which regards itself as “Canada’s National Newspaper”), could have
been written by lobbyists for Access Copyright and publisher interests, though
it would lack her hallmark and that of the Globe and Mail.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This is not the first time she has
blatantly opined for Access Copyright. </span><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/kate-taylor-kids-will-suffer-if-canadas-copyright-legislation-doesnt-change/article29720114/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here she is in 2016</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> using her
Globe and Mail podium, which does not even pretend to be an “opinion” piece as
does the current effort. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She doesn’t seem to understand that
fair dealing rights are “users’ rights” that must be given a “large and liberal
interpretation” and are “always available.” She needn’t take my word for this.
Those statements come from the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverly McLachlin in
the landmark 2004 </span><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1glp0"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CCH v. LSUC</span></i></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> decision.
Above all, fair dealing is not a “loophole”. Fair dealing rights are absolutely
essential and integral to the concept of copyright in Canada and every other
comparable jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She doesn’t
seem to know the difference in terminology between “fair dealing” (Canada) and “fair
use” (USA).</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She is
apparently unaware that the USA has provided more and more explicit rights to
educators since 1976 than Canada has ever done, i.e. by hard wiring <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">teaching </span></span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1496914075-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span style="color: darkred; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">(including </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">multiple</span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-2024104691-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src="><span style="background: white; color: #001c72; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> copies </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">for classroom use), scholarship, or research”
into its copyright law since 1976. See </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">17 USC 107</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">.</span></b></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> Nobody could credibly suggest that this is non-compliant
with international treaties. It’s simply absurd to suggest that Canada is an
“outlier” in this respect; if anything, our fair dealing users’ rights need to
go even farther to catch up with the USA.</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She is apparently
unaware that key Canadian SCC fair dealing decisions, including the landmark 2012<i>
</i></span><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/fs0v5"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Alberta
v. Access Copyright</span></i></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> and the </span><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/fs0vf"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">SOCAN v.
Bell </span></i></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>iTunes preview cases, were decided on the
pre-2012 law that goes back to 1921 <b><u>before</u></b> the word “education”
was added to s. 29.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She is
misleading readers by suggesting that the addition of the word “education” to
s. 29 of the <i>Copyright Act</i> via the 2012 <i>Copyright Modernization Act</i>
caused the decline in Access Copyright’s revenues. Indeed, the 2019 INDU
Committee Report from Parliament </span><a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports/RP10537003/indurp16/indurp16-e.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">confirms</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that:<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">... in <span style="color: #42792f;">Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing
Agency (Access Copyright)</span>,5 the SCC concluded that teachers could rely
on the fair dealing exception when reproducing works for their students since
these students were engaging in “private study.” The SCC reached this
conclusion without relying on an explicit fair dealing exception for
“education”—which, as noted above, has since been added to the Act.</span></i></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">See
also:</span></li></ul><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">Prof. </span><a href="https://arielkatz.org/archives/4229"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ariel
Katz’s 2018 testimony</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%;"> at the INDU hearings
explaining that correlation does not imply causation and outlining the
many of the actual reasons for Access Copyright’s declining revenues<br /></span><span style="line-height: 107%;">Prof. Ariel
Katz’s 2014 blog about </span><a href="https://arielkatz.org/archives/3281"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Loss of Access Copyright Royalties and the Effect on
Publishers: Sifting Fact from Fiction</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,</span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%;"> which debunks the myths
about the Oxford University Press “OUP”)decision <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">close its Canadian K-12 division. Ms. Taylor in her current
opinion to continues to attempt to refloat the OUP fiction</span></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There have been no court cases since
2012 that have specifically considered the effect, if any, of the 2012 addition
of the word “education” with respect to the fair dealing rights of educators,
librarians, students and other essential “users” of the copyright system.<span style="background: white; color: red;"> </span>In any event, the effect of the
dealing on the market for the work being copied is one of the factors that
courts would consider in determining fairness or lack thereof and, if Ms.
Taylor is somehow correct in her assertion of causal connection, then copyright
owners are already protected – so there’s another reason why there’s no
loophole that needs to be fixed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">She is apparently unaware of the
greatly increased spending since 2012 that bypasses Access Copyright not just
because tariffs aren’t mandatory (as Ariel Katz and I have been preaching for a
decade or so and the SCC agreed in 2021) but because Access Copyright’s
“tariff” offers such poor value. Its repertoire is very limited – especially in
the post-secondary educational (“PSE”) sector – and its terms of use are too
limited to justify any more than a small fraction of their </span><a href="https://decisions.cb-cda.gc.ca/cb-cda/certified-homologues/en/item/453967/index.do"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“approved” tariff</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,</span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> which is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">$24.80
per FTE student, if the educational institution is a university. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">$9.54
per FTE student, if another educational institution (i.e. college)<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The PSE sector is spending more money
than ever though acquisitions, direct licensing, and dealing with the much more
responsible and responsive American Copyright Clearance Center for
transactional licences. Access Copyright is notoriously inefficient in its
distribution, offers very limited “rights”, and its repertoire is focussed on
Canadian literature – which is not a major component in the PSE sector. Most
Canadian university or college grads will never need to read Margaret Atwood or
Alice Munro. Maybe they should for their literary betterment. But such material
is not part of the curriculum for engineers, doctors, lawyers, computer
programmers, and the overwhelming majority of PSE students. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Access Copyright persists in attempting
to collect revenues based upon repertoire for which it has NO rights. It once
was able to get educational institutions to hold their noses on its dubious and
now defunct “indemnity” scheme, which may have appeared to offer some practical
value to some institutions. I’ve written a lot about this in the past,
including </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2009/06/excess-access-copyright-tariff-ruling.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">this from 2009</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I have often suggested that Access
Copyright could serve a useful purpose if it offered decent value to license
its actual repertoire based upon useful terms and conditions at a reasonable
price. But that price would presumably be a fraction – perhaps 10% - of what it
currently sees itself entitled.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">BTW, </span><a href="https://www.accesscopyright.ca/educators/universities-colleges/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Access Copyright’s website is deceptively out of date regarding
the PSE tariff case law, where it stops in 2017.</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ms. Taylor concludes her perfect puff
piece for Access Copyright by saying “<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">The <b><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">legalized
robbery</span></b> of Canadian authors by the education sector is an
international embarrassment and a <b><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">national shame</span></b>.” (emphasis and highlight added) Frankly, the
national shame is that Canada’s national newspaper would publish something this
misinformed, outrageous, and imbalanced that might get mistaken, due to its
provenance and the Globe and Mail’s status, for credible journalism or
analysis. BTW, I posted several timely tweets about this “opinion” and compiled
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>them for the comments section for the
Globe and Mail, which has apparently decided not to publish my comment<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in the </span></span><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-copyright-loophole-for-education-should-be-plugged/#comments"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“comments” feature</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> following her opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">All that said, Ms. Taylor’s analytically
and factually challenged “opinion” should at least be useful as a wakeup call
for the educational sector – which frankly has not stepped up to the plate with
sufficient vigor and confidence since its great victory in the SCC in the </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">2021 Access Copyright case, for which Ariel Katz laid the legal foundation
and influentially intervened and I made the prevailing arguments on behalf of the intervener Canadian
Association of Research Libraries (“CARL”)</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">.</span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The good copyright news overall now is
that we recently passed Passover this year without the feared fatal budget
announcement regarding fair dealing or mandatory tariffs that this Government
might have hidden away in Federal Budget. That’s the good news.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The bad news is that this doesn’t mean
these dangers have passed, as Ms. Taylor’s opinion piece blatantly demonstrates.
Although the Hon. Pablo Rodriguez has his hands full with his incredibly
misguided legislation in the form of Bills C-11 (now passed) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and C-18 (the “link tax” bill), that doesn’t
mean that he or his enabling officials have forgotten about copyright and the shrill
and misinformed voices from Quebec (of which he is Trudeau’s “Lieutenant”) and
Bay Street.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Wiser ministers know that copyright
revision – other than very careful incremental changes – is not a hill to die
on in Canada. Fortunately, there are two other ministers who will hopefully
bring some essential legal and policy wisdom to the table, should this become
necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Hon. F-P Champagne, the
ISED minister, is actually the minister with historically primary
responsibility for copyright. The Minister of Justice – the Hon. David Lametti
– who is mentioned by name by Ms. Taylor – may also play a role. He was a
leading copyright law professor at the McGill Faculty of Law for about 15 years
before he ran for office. His department is responsible for ensuring the
constitutionality of any legislation and is responsible for the review and
drafting of legislation for the government. He was my client and appeared with
me in his capacity as law professor and head of the Centre for <span style="color: black;">Intellectual Property Policy at McGill in another
important SCC case that helped to pave the way to the definitive 2021 SCC York ruling
that Access Copyright tariffs aren’t mandatory. See </span></span><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/gm8b0%3e."><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Canadian
Broadcasting Corp. v. SODRAC 2003 Inc.</span></i></b></a><span style="color: #212529; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, 2015 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 615.</span><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In the lull before the possible
copyright storm, the best thing that the user community can do would be to
follow the suggestion of Justice Abella in her last and crowning SCC decision
of her illustrious career, namely to “actualize” their fair dealing rights as
she puts it in the 2021 </span><a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2021/2021scc32/2021scc32.html"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Access Copyright v. York University</span></i></b><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> decision from the SCC.</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As I’ve </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2022/10/canadian-copyright-today-confrontations.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">said before:</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The
victories of the PSE (post secondary education) sector are in peril – not only
because of AC and its collaborators but because of sometimes unwise strategies
in the PSE sector itself. Recall this important analysis by Prof. Ariel Katz
following York’s defeat at the trial level in 2017: </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://www.law.utoronto.ca/blog/faculty/access-copyright-v-york-university-anatomy-predictable-avoidable-loss"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Access Copyright v.
York University: An Anatomy of a Predictable But Avoidable Loss.</span></i></b></a></span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> The fact that the AC litigation against York was not
struck down early on and had to go the SCC and that York chose to bet the farm
on a bad set of fair dealing guidelines and risk a severe smack down overall on
fair dealing does not bode well for the future unless basic lessons have been
learned – which is hopefully happening but is not yet evident. York very nearly
lost that litigation. Fortunately, my brave client the Canadian Association of
Research Libraries (“</span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://www.carl-abrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CARL-ABRC_Stats_Pub_2018-19.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">CARL</span></b></a></span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">”) and Prof. Ariel Katz </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">were very </span></b></span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">instrumental in saving York from this fate –</span></b></a></span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> though it’s far from clear that all those responsible for
York’s strategy actually appreciate our work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It surely suggests that
the PSE sector needs to update fair dealing guidelines and to follow </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jh8bc"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Abella’s wise words</span></b></a></span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> in the York decision:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="background: white; margin-left: 108pt; mso-add-space: auto;"><i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[106] At the end of the day,
the question in a case involving a university’s fair dealing practices <u>is <span style="background: yellow;">whether those practices <b>actualize</b> the
students’ right to receive course material for educational purposes in a fair
manner, consistent with the underlying balance between users’ rights and
creators’ rights in the Act</span></u>. Since we are not deciding the merits of
the fair dealing appeal brought by York, there is no reason to answer the
question in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="background: white; margin-left: 108pt; mso-add-space: auto;"><i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">(underline highlight &
emphasis added)</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This can only mean that the
PSE sector needs to come up with viable fair dealing guidelines that are:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Neither
too permissive nor too defensive</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sufficiently
specific to be actually useful.</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sufficiently
to broad to enable adult responsibility by individual professors and library
personnel without the need to seek legal advice or permission from so-called
rights owners or their licensees (after all, that is what fair dealing is all
about)</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Likely
to stand up to scrutiny in the event of litigation.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As I’ve</span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></b></span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2020/06/access-copyright-v-york-university-some.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">said before:</span></b></a></span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-left: 36pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Perhaps York should have been rather
more careful about what it wished for. Both the Federal Court and the FCA had
to respond to the counterclaim, which they did as asked. I am on record from
the beginning as having questioned not only the guidelines themselves, which
emanate from AUCC (now UC) guidelines but York’s decision to needlessly, in my
view, put them on trial. Essentially, I had suggested that York get a summary
ruling on whether the tariff was mandatory – which should have been very easy
at least after the 2015 SCC judgment – and not unnecessarily “bet the farm” on
the controversial fair dealing guidelines. Here are </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/search?q=aucc+fair+dealing+guidelines&updated-max=2010-12-23T08:20:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=17&by-date=true"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #6aa84f; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">some of my blogs in reverse
chronological order.</span></b></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The process of
actualizing educators’ fair dealing rights, which includes updating fair
dealing guidelines, is essential and may suffice to head off any improvident
legislation, such as Ms. Taylor and her supporters would like to see. It is too
important to be entrusted to any single organization. That said, it should not
be unduly complicated, given the good beginning of the 2012 U of T guidelines with
which I was closely involved. These could be satisfactorily updated relatively quickly
by a very small number of experts. If different organizations separately develop
new guidelines, then let the market decide which approach is better. This may
prove more efficient than attempting to form a coalition that could result in
delays and devolution to the lowest common denominator. Above all, the mistakes
that almost resulted in defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory in the
long saga of the York litigation as a result of problematic guidelines and
litigation strategy must not be repeated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The original 2012 U of T
fair dealing guidelines were developed in a cooperative collaboration between
usually contrasting viewpoints (Casey Chisick and I) under the wise leadership
of the now retired and much missed U of T general counsel Steve Moate. I was
pleased to have been part of this process. These were, IMHO, the best fair
dealing guidelines to date and suggest a method and process of going forward.
If Casey and I can agree on anything concerning copyright, chances are that it
must be right!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">U of T has recently controversially updated
its fair dealing guidelines, supposedly in response to the 2021 York decision
from the SCC. Here is the </span><a href="https://www.provost.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/155/2023/02/2023_FairDealingGuidelines.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">new version</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">. I was NOT involved
in this update because I was not invited. I and many others are <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">very</span></b></span> disappointed
with these new guidelines which are a big step backwards and, in some respects,
simply wrong and even harmful. I will not go into any detail now as to how they
are less than helpful, other than to say this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Overall, these revised 2022 (as
slightly updated in early 2023) guidelines are a disappointing and, in several
instances, questionable and even inaccurate revision and update. They are more
restrictive for the PSE sector than the 2012 guidelines. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Overall, the guidelines have gone from
a reasonably balanced “safe harbour” approach that <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>enabled and empowered fair dealing to a much
more risk-averse restrictive approach that overly protects publishers and
needlessly errs on the side of caution at the cost of good education, research,
and private study. With three strong SCC fair dealing victories in the last
decades and two recent strong SCC judgements that tariffs aren’t mandatory, why
wouldn’t U of T offer more assertive and empowering guidelines for the benefit
of teachers and, above all, students – in other words, the university
community. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If the current government is unwise
enough to follow the histrionic hyperbole of Access Copyright and powerful
publishers as presented by Ms. Taylor, then the PSE sector must be ready to
defend itself with a good offence. This might include:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Clarifying that
TPMs can be circumvented for fair dealing purposes</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ensuring that users’
fair dealing rights cannot be overridden by contract or waiver</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ensuring that if
crown copyright is not abolished in its present form, then republication of any
crown work that is not officially “secret” should be permitted as fair dealing.
This would be almost as good as in the USA where the federal government has no
copyright rights in its works</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Adding the two
little words “such as” to the s. 29 fair dealing provision, consistent with
American law.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Anyway, thank you to <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">@ThatKateTaylor</span></b></span>
this unintentional call to arms to all those who care about a fair deal for
fair dealing and other essential aspects of copyright in Canada. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK</span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-92000816549165856432023-05-10T18:43:00.003-04:002023-05-28T22:53:54.257-04:00IP Judges in the Federal Court: Chamber, Echo Chamber and/or Star Chamber?<p> Chief Justice Crampton of the Federal
Court has recently <b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2023-03-02-Notice-Specialized-Chambers.pdf"><span style="color: #00b050;">on March 2, 2023 formally announced the creation of three
“chambers” in the Federal Court</span></a></span></b><span style="color: #00b050;">,
</span>namely:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Intellectual Property and Competition
Chambers</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Maritime and Admiralty Chambers</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Class Actions Chambers</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>The Court’s Notice states that:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Registry
categorizes and codes all proceedings. This and other case information is
considered by the Judicial Administrator when assigning judges to a case. <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">It is therefore not necessary
for parties to make a formal request for a matter to be assigned to a judge
from the relevant Chamber. For assignments to the Intellectual Property and
Competition Chambers, the Judicial Administrator will also consider
sub-specialties related to practice areas particular to IP (e.g., copyright,
trade-marks, patents and competition).</span><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="background: yellow; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">Assignment of matters to IP Chambers is automatic.</span></i><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="background: yellow; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">It is not necessary for parties to make a formal request
for a matter to be assigned to a judge from the relevant Chamber. The Federal
Court Registry categorizes and codes all proceedings, which is considered by
the Judicial Administrator when assigning judges to a case.</span></i><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(highlight
added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The list for the main category of IP
& Competition is as follows, as provided by the Court:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Chief Justice Crampton</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Associate Chief Justice Gagné</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice O’Reilly</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Zinn</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Manson</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Roy</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice McVeigh</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice St-Louis</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Brown</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Fothergill</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Gascon</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Southcott</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice McDonald</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Lafrenière</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Pentney</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Grammond</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Walker</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice McHaffie</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Fuhrer</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Pallotta</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Little</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Furlanetto</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Aylen</span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Tsimberis</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This list comprises 24 of the 41 current judges of the
Federal Court. Only about seven of the judges on this list had any significant
experience in IP law prior to their appointment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>In recent years, we have seen the cohort of judges with some
previous IP litigation experience rise from none to one or two and now to at
least seven or eight out of 41. Three of the nine Associate Judges (formerly
called Prothonotaries) have a significant background in IP. Overall, this may
seem like a good thing – and in many ways it is.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="line-height: 107%;">Predictably, </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/federal-court-of-canada-launches-specialized-intellectual-property-chambers-pilot-project"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">at least one active plaintiff
side litigator firm</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%;"> sees this a
positive move that will be “An improvement to IP enforcement in Canada”. However,
some cautionary notes should be considered. Some of the best IP judgements over
the years have come from judges with a more generalist background who had not
previously practiced in IP before being appointed. More about this below…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="line-height: 107%;">An ongoing and not unrelated concern on
my part and that of some other thoughtful colleagues is with respect to judgments
rendered in default proceedings. There is a risk above all that any judge –
even one with previous IP experience – may not be sufficiently briefed in a
default proceeding in which the adversarial process does not unfold as it should. Judgments in such
cases should rarely if ever be given “neutral citations” and thereby
presumptive precedential status. There could be a risk that the “chamber”
concept may increase the possibility of judges following their own default
judgments or those of their colleagues when such judgments should have little
or no precedential value. The American courts have long had a tradition of
treating default judgements and some other decisions unworthy of precedential
status as “unpublished” judgements that bind only the parties but nobody else
and are NOT to be cited as precedents. One hopes that the chamber approach does
not exacerbate the problematic potential of default judgments being given
neutral and, hence, potentially precedential status. I’ve </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/search?q=nintendo+default"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">written about the problem with default judgements getting neural
citations before</span></a>.</span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><o:p><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></o:p></span></b></span>The increasing use of Anton Piller orders (which by
definition result from <i>ex parte</i> proceedings and can potentially lead to incarceration
for contempt) - and Norwich Orders exposing
the private information of hundreds of people at a time (which are rarely any
longer adequately opposed) are particularly fraught with precedential peril and
should not be issued on a routine basis and require a very broad understanding of
fundamental legal principles. Hopefully, the chamber approach will not lessen
the need for all due care and attention to these types of proceedings.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>The late, great, leader of the IP bar and one of the best all-around
Canadian barristers of all time was Gordon
F. Henderson, author of the Henderson Report entitled <i>“Intellectual Property:
Litigation, Legislation, and Education”</i>
published in 1991 (Cat. No, 43-25\1991E, ISBN 0-662-19084-X, CCAC No. 00114 91-08) and, sadly, not
available online – though hopefully it will be one day sooner rather than later. I worked very
closely with him on that project when I was in government, but it was his
distinguished decades of experience that informed the main recommendations. He
commented that:</p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i><i>On balance, <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">I do not think that we need to
seek out specialized practitioners to constitute an intellectual property “panel”
as such on the Federal Court</span>. However, consideration should be given to the
appointment of some practitioners experienced in intellectual property matters.
<span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">It would not be expected
that they would hear all or only intellectual property cases</span>. This would
be a solution with no significant downside. It would not require any legislation
to implement, although it would require considerable consultation with the
Canadian Bar Association, the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada, and
other interested parties in the ever more democratic process of judicial appointments.
Those responsible for recruiting should consider no only the practicing Bar but
the specialized cadres of government, industry and academia. </i>(highlight added) </p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>He cautioned against a specialized court and recommended
that:</p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><i><span style="background: yellow; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">Judges should be appointed to the Federal Court with specialized background
in intellectual property law, although they should not be assigned exclusively to
this area.</span></i><i> Recruitment should consider not only private practitioners
but government, industry and academia. </i>(highlight added)</p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">A potential danger of having too many IP judges from the
private sector is, frankly, that they may tend to come from plaintiff side
practices. Some IP firms have very pronounced points of view. Although a judge can
leave their practices and any conflicts behind,
can they always leave their sometimes strong points of view behind?</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Copyright, in particular, has become highly polarized - not
unlike labour law- where firms tend to pick one side or another. When a firm
acts for a major copyright user organization on the one hand and a major copyright
collective on the other hand – even where there is no direct conflict of
interest – the issue of a business or philosophical conflict may at least
appear to arise and some may question whether the public interest is being
compromised. Waivers may not solve all the potential concerns. Indeed, certain
major media companies are now simultaneously major players as ISPs, copyright
owners, and copyright users in various proceedings in various fora. They
presumably are doing the best for their shareholders. As for the public
interest, maybe not so much. Patent practice tends also to be rather polarized
overall – especially in pharmaceutical litigation – though this generality may
be evolving. Trademarks law is relatively less prone to polarization.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">In any event, most of the money in IP practice is on the plaintiffs’
side – in other words, in enforcement on behalf of rights owners.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Another phenomenon is that even some IP practitioners tend
to think that expertise in one of the three main areas – namely copyright,
patent, and trademarks – translates to insight and expertise in the other
areas. However, that is very often not the case and is an increasingly problematic
proposition as these practices become more like specialized silos. Mindful of
the dangers of analogies, one might ask whether a great NFL football player – but
someone who can’t even skate – could suddenly be on an NHL hockey team?
I would much rather take my chances with a wise generalist judge than a judge
who is a former patent lawyer who mistakenly thinks they understand copyright
law or vice versa. There are many IP lawyers who lack reliable expertise in all
three areas. A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Some of the best jurisprudence in IP law has come from judges
who had little or no background in IP. Former CJ Beverly McLachlin - who
penned the landmark “magna carta” Canadian copyright case in <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1glp0"><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law
Society of Upper Canada,</span></a></span></i></b></span><i><span style="color: #212529; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> 2004 </span></i><span style="color: #212529;">SCC 13 (CanLII), [2004] 1
SCR 339 </span>did have some related background in her early career having written
a book on architecture and penned an important copyright trial judgement <i>in </i><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1p6nv"><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. Ltd. v. Sleep-King Adjustable
Bed Co. Ltd. et al</span></a>.</span></i></b></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">,</span></b></span><span style="color: #212529;"> 1984 CanLII 54 (BC SC). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="color: #212529; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #212529;">Other important appellate jurisprudence has
come in recent times, for example, from Justices Abella, Bastarache, Rothstein,
Rowe, Nadon, and Stratas</span><span style="color: #212529;"> </span><span style="color: #212529;">- none of whom
had a background as IP litigators. Another, of course, is Justice Binnie – a great
all-around barrister who was appointed straight to the SCC. He did have some
important experience as a litigator in some IP cases. And there have been many
excellent IP trial judgments from generalist trial judges in the Federal Court
over the years, as well as from judges from the Superior Courts of the provinces.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="color: #212529; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>While one has high hopes for this “chamber” development, let
us not have excessive expectations. We certainly hope that the IP chamber doesn’t
somehow become an echo chamber or even a star chamber. We watch with cautious
optimism.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-78406170522389382332023-04-18T20:14:00.008-04:002023-05-05T13:36:37.148-04:00Indigenous Painting and the Law in Canada<p>There has been much attention lately to Indigenous painting
and law, particularly coyright and criminal law, in Canada.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Re <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/norval-morrisseau-forgery-1.6766990"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">Noval Morrisseau</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Re <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/artist-accused-plagiarism-1.6796703"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">Autumn Smith</span></b></a>:<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.cbc.ca/1.6806795.1681234274!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/side-by-side-comparison-smith-and-rushnell.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="439" data-original-width="780" height="338" src="https://i.cbc.ca/1.6806795.1681234274!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/side-by-side-comparison-smith-and-rushnell.JPG" width="515" /></a></div><div><br /></div><i><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-size: 14px;">The left painting is Autumn Smith's interpretation of her being given a traditional name by her grandmother, and was published to Instagram March 29, 2019. The painting on the right is from Tyler Rushnell and was published on Instagram Nov. 9, 2021.</span><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-size: 14px;"> </span><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-size: 14px;">(Submitted by Autumn Smith) </span></i><div><span face="Open Sans, sans-serif" style="color: #545454;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><i>https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/artist-accused-plagiarism-1.6796703</i></span></span><p class="MsoNormal">It is important to understand what copyright law does and
does not do. Facts and details matter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There’s no copyright in:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Ideas as such</li><li>Styles as such </li><li>Symbols including birds, animals,
plants, etc. as such</li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example, merely copying or imitation of an idea or style
is not, by itself copyright infringement. If Monet’s work were not in the
public domain, I could still paint my own version of a pond with lilies, as a
long as I don’t copy one of his paintings. I might even get away with copying
one of his lilies, if it was one small and insubstantial part of a much larger
canvas with dozens or hundreds of water lilies and I paint my own version of a
lily pond.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Van Gogh – who is regarded as almost as a deity when it
comes to paintings of sunflowers – <a href="https://www.claude-monet.com/sunflowers.jsp"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">greatly
admired the younger Monet’s sunflower painting</span></b></a> – even though it superficially
seems rather similar. Nobody owns the idea of sunflowers in a vase.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7uGS0ALnMMrziIomDbTbg9nrKCidtjN9x8oh16LXDe0pH8iwK7ERnLHeFoTwe9j81zdSSW3bR-t3HIrC4gAuLTotOMrE93tERrcCRlPJxBfEfPLSDdevfLLEYrIQbIX720oU20AlpGxmBchwQXlXS6GdJC3G68wAL6iA5eAlUa6RO6X62AMk/s681/Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_127.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="681" data-original-width="540" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7uGS0ALnMMrziIomDbTbg9nrKCidtjN9x8oh16LXDe0pH8iwK7ERnLHeFoTwe9j81zdSSW3bR-t3HIrC4gAuLTotOMrE93tERrcCRlPJxBfEfPLSDdevfLLEYrIQbIX720oU20AlpGxmBchwQXlXS6GdJC3G68wAL6iA5eAlUa6RO6X62AMk/w188-h237/Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_127.jpg" width="188" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwcOs-4YA8Nqlkzy4J_GMoDcT6GLgEE8NVCAgmWkvYKYecVI9js7nVhVBAywWUqTfZrBAI9Pi4OACu8gjpeL388vxebRinsWYC5YeEng-cxUtMVg6vzWo26fJ5d1RoOdMk_g42n-YPpupWTkjTxT4RAcRSz3mrPNuQjs0WWiFBVcGUv6pvsEw/s888/Monet%20sunflowers.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="888" data-original-width="700" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwcOs-4YA8Nqlkzy4J_GMoDcT6GLgEE8NVCAgmWkvYKYecVI9js7nVhVBAywWUqTfZrBAI9Pi4OACu8gjpeL388vxebRinsWYC5YeEng-cxUtMVg6vzWo26fJ5d1RoOdMk_g42n-YPpupWTkjTxT4RAcRSz3mrPNuQjs0WWiFBVcGUv6pvsEw/w187-h237/Monet%20sunflowers.jpg" width="187" /></a></div><br /><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Van Gogh<span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Monet</span></span><br /><p class="MsoNormal">This history of all graphic arts, literature, drama, and
music has been predicated on imitation and evolution.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Indigenous community in Canada has some fundamentally different
concepts than “Western” property concepts as embodied in common law based copyright
law. For example, in Western copyright law, there is no communal ownership. Copyright
initially vests in the creator – or the creator's employer in some
circumstances - and is limited in time – now 70 years after the artist’s death.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For Canadian copyright law to apply to Indigenous art, as with
any art, certain basic facts must be proven. Any party suing for copyright infringement
must show that the work is:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>“Original” (which may not be
obvious in some cases);</li><li>That the plaintiff is the copyright
owner or the assignee (or at least the exclusive licensee of the owner, in
which case the owner must included the litigation); and, </li><li>That the work as a whole or at
least a sufficiently “substantial part thereof” has been copied or otherwise
dealt with contrary to the <i>Copyright Act</i>.</li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Imitation or even appropriation of a style may not suffice
to establish copyright infringement. If I can master my painterly skills to
paint pictures in the recognizable style of a well known artist, without
copying any of their works or any substantial portion thereof, that alone is
likely not copyright infringement. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If, however, I put the famous artist’s name on it, or hold
it out as being an authentic Morrisseau or whoever, it may well constitute actionable
civil passing off and/or even serious <i>Criminal Code</i> offences. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Changes of colour or the inclusion or elimination of small details
in a “copy” of an original work may not suffice to avoid copyright infringement
– though watch to see if the Supreme Court of the USA lets the Andy Warhol
Estate off the hook for doing little or nothing more than that. What happens in
the USA does not always stay in the USA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indigenous artists are no better or worse off than other
creators when it comes to the cost of litigation. Lawsuits can be expensive, if
done properly. But cost recovery is getting better and damage awards are
getting higher. And injunctions can be very powerful – and result in jail time
for those who disobey them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In any case, I have always thought that Indigenous artists
should take better advantage of the <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-13/page-5.html#h-450732"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">certification mark provisions of Canada’s Trademarks Act</span></b></a>,
so as to provide a “seal of approval”, as it were, as to the indigeneity of the
artist <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and the authenticity of his or
her works. There is little indication that this mechanism has been used to adequate
advantage – or indeed to any significant extent. Such a collective might even
be able to help out with the costs of funding litigation when appropriate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is much discussion about a “resale” right that might
benefit Indigenous artists. Such a right is unlikely to be established in the
USA, with whom we have a very open border, in the foreseeable future. It might greatly
affect and even disrupt the art market in Canada. And it would only be of any
benefit to living artists who are sufficiently successful such that their works
significantly appreciate in value while they are still alive. Otherwise, it
could become another vehicle for collectives, estates, and lawyers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">HPK</p></div>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-63654277698470943812023-03-24T17:42:00.009-04:002023-04-10T19:26:03.190-04:00Copyright Board Rules of Practice and Procedure: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose?<p></p><p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt; text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/lotta56sparks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/56-Sparks-photo.jpg?resize=206%2C275" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="206" height="210" src="https://i0.wp.com/lotta56sparks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/56-Sparks-photo.jpg?resize=206%2C275" width="158" /></a></div><span style="color: #333333; text-align: left;"><div><span style="color: #333333; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>After years
of concern about extraordinary delays and other problems that led a </span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2016/11/senate-committee-calls-for-thorough-in.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">Senate Committee to label the Copyright Board</span></b></a></span></span><span style="color: #333333; text-align: left;"> back in 2016 as “dated, dysfunctional and in dire need
of reform”, the Board has finally come up with some supposedly </span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #00b050;">new <a href="https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2023/2023-03-01/html/sor-dors24-eng.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">“Copyright Board Rules of Practice and Procedure:
SOR/2023-24”</span></a></span></b></span><p></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">The only
thing that is reasonably clear from this very prolonged, non-transparent, and no
doubt very expensive exercise and the resulting new document is that the Board
is trying to justify yet another budget increase of as much as a million dollars
a year. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><i><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; mso-highlight: yellow;">The costs of the Rules are expected to
be less than <b>$1 million annually</b>.</span><span style="color: #333333;">
While parties will be required to provide information earlier on in
proceedings, the amount or type of information required from parties will be
the same as under the current Model Directive. </span></i><span style="color: #333333;">(highlight and emphasis added)<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">It bears
repetition that the Board has held only one actual hearing in more than five
years and that almost all of its decisions for a very long time have been unimportant
and mostly unopposed. Indeed, several proposed tariffs have been withdrawn by
collectives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">There is
nothing in the new procedures that warrants optimism that the Board will rise
beyond its dysfunctional doldrums. Meanwhile, the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/en/about-us/reports-publications/departmental-reports-and-plans/2023-2024-departmental-plan"><span style="color: #00b050;">Board will have 25 FTE employees and a net cost of
operations before government funding and transfers $5,171,140 for 2022-2023.</span></a></span></b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">I’ll discuss
only four issues in these “new” Rules, namely<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: #333333;">Interrogatories</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333;">Quorum</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333;">Case Management</span></li><li><span style="color: #333333;">Delays in
Decisions</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><b><u><span style="color: #333333;">Interrogatories<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">The elephant
in the room has always been and still remains the issue of interrogatories. Some
collectives have used the interrogatory process to put forward irrelevant and arguably
abusive questions to objectors that require the production of irrelevant and
confidential financial information, etc. The results of overreach on the part of
some collective and failure by the Board to control this process have ranged
from time consuming fishing expeditions to try to build a case to the driving away
of and withdrawal of well-meaning objectors as a result of oppressive and
expensive financial and time costs, not to mention irrelevant disclosure of
financial and other sensitive business information. Another tactic has been the
demand for lengthy interrogatory answers </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">from <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cb/doc/2019/2019canlii149626/2019canlii149626.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAhImNvcHlyaWdodCBib2FyZCIgaW50ZXJyb2dhdG9yaWVzAAAAAAE&resultIndex=8"><span style="color: #00b050;">each member or too many members of associations
representing a large membership.</span></a> See <a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/08/copyright-boards-august-18-2011-rulings.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">my blog from 2011</span></a></span></b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> about Access Copyright’s aggressive use of
interrogatories that led to the withdrawal of all objectors even including
major educational associations except from one lone individual whose reason for
involvement was never clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">The Board
now explicitly gives itself the discretion to rule on the “scope”, etc. of
interrogatories – which it has always had - but absolutely no indication of
what type of information will be considered relevant and how it will refrain
from making the problematic pro-collective rulings it has made in the past,
e.g. as mentioned above:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><strong><i><span style="color: #333333;">Interrogatories</span></i></strong><i><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><strong><i><span style="color: #333333;">34</span></i></strong><i><span style="color: #333333;"> The Board or the case manager may make an order to
permit interrogatories and to specify their number, type, scope and form, the
time limits for their completion and the person to whom they may be addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">BTW, the
Competition Tribunal has had <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2008-141/page-1.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">“Rules” in place since 2008</span></a></span></b></span>
that apparently work well – and are more like the time honoured processes in
the Courts that require the exchange of Affidavits of Documents after adequate
pleadings and subsequent discovery – rather than the endless and often abusive
fishing expeditions enabled by the Copyright Board in the name of
“interrogatories” that have driven worthy and well-intentioned objectors away,
even long before it became clear that Copyright Board tariffs aren’t mandatory.
Courts do not allow for preliminary and lengthy fishing expeditions by
plaintiffs to determine the basis, if any, of their case. Courts do not allow plaintiffs
to put the cart before the horse. Why would a rational objector spend a fortune
engaging in interrogatories or fights about interrogatories and the other procedural
uncertainties endemic at the Board to oppose a tariff that won’t even be
mandatory at the end of the day?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Quorum:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There is a new
and explicit provision re “Quorum”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><strong><i><span style="color: #333333;">Quorum</span></i></strong><i><span style="color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8.65pt 36pt;"><strong><i><span style="color: #333333;">10</span></i></strong><i><span style="color: #333333;"> In all proceedings before the Board, the quorum is
one member.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I am not aware
that anyone asked for this. In the past, this has been dealt with pursuant to </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #548235; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=75000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent6; mso-themecolor: accent6; mso-themeshade: 191;"><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21/FullText.html#:~:text=Majority%20and%20Quorum&text=22%20(1)%20Where%20an%20enactment,of%20them%20may%20do%20it."><span style="color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=75000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent6; mso-themecolor: accent6; mso-themeshade: 191;"><span color="windowtext">s. 22 of the <i>Interpretation Act</i></span></span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,
meaning that a quorum would be majority of appointed members.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It is bizarre
that the Chair of the Board can now designate just one person to be a quorum.
Even supposedly simple matters may become contentious and complicated for
better or for worse – e.g. the Breaktrhrough Films “unlocatable” case – the
decision for which seems to have disappeared from the Board’s expensive new
website but can be found </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #548235; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=75000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent6; mso-themecolor: accent6; mso-themeshade: 191;"><a href="https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/28394"><span style="color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #548235; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=75000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent6; mso-themecolor: accent6; mso-themeshade: 191;"><span color="windowtext">here</span></span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
thanks to Prof. Ariel Katz. Although it would seem inconceivable, this new Rule
would allow only one member to decide such complex and economically significant
matters such as the retransmission tariff, which is worth more than $100
million a year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">BTW, the
Copyright Act provides that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">66
(1) There is established a Board to be known as the Copyright Board, consisting
of not more than five members, including a Chair and a Vice-chair, to be
appointed by the Governor in Council.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This suggests
that there must be a least a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The question <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;">of <a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-notes-about-recent-developments-at.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">whether or not there was a quorum very nearly became an
issue in 2018</span></a>. </span></b></span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Case Management<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It's strange enough
that, under the legislation and rules, a case manger could be merely an
employee or outside consultant who could decide very significant procedural matters,
presumably including such matters as rulings on interrogatories. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Case
manager<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">66.504
(1) The Chair may assign a member, officer or employee of the Board or a person
engaged under subsection 66.4(3) to act as a case manager of a matter before
the Board.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Staff<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">66.4
...<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(3)
The Board may engage on a temporary basis the services of persons having
technical or specialized knowledge to advise and assist in the performance of
its duties and the Board may, in accordance with Treasury Board directives, fix
and pay the remuneration and expenses of those persons.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In the Federal
Court and the Ontario Superior Court, case managers are Associate Judges and
Masters respectively who invariably have been very experienced lawyers. Even if
case management rulings can be entrusted to one person, that person should at
least be a duly appointed member of the Board <b>and</b> one with adequate legal
qualifications. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Under the new
Rules, the case manager can decide such weighty matters as:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">whether
interrogatories should take place and their parameters as applicable;</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> documents
to be filed with the Board before a hearing, including legal briefs and case
records</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">All that said,
it is hard to see how this sits with <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-17.html#h-104829"><span style="color: #00b050;">s. 66.5(2)</span></a></span></b></span> of the <i>Copyright
Act</i>, which requires that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="marginalnote" style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 8.4pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 14.4pt; margin: 14.4pt 0cm 8.4pt 36pt;"><b><i><span style="color: #333333;">Decisions<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="subsection" style="background: white; line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 8.4pt; margin: 8.4pt 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span class="lawlabel"><b><i><span style="color: black;">(2)</span></i></b></span><i><span style="color: #333333;"> Matters before the Board shall be <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">decided by a majority</span> of
the members of the Board and the presiding member shall have a second vote in
the case of a tie. (highlight added)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Delays<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">What other court
of tribunal allows a decision to be pending for several years AFTER the
adjudicators have “retired” and are presumably being paid while thinking about
the pending decision? <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Judges of
the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have eight weeks after retirement
to render any pending decisions. Even Supreme Court of Canada justices have
only six months after they retire to participate in decisions in cases on which
they sat. </span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The <a href="https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2014_1021_en.asp"><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Canadian Judicial Council has specifically pronounced</span></a></span></b></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> that “judges should render decisions
within six months of hearing a case, except in very complex matters or where
there are special circumstances.”</span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Even with the
recently time limits regulations, the Board can still keep a tariff decision pending
for a long time and postpone the date of a decision presumably for years under
the rubric of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-copyright-board-begins-2021-with.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">“exceptional circumstances”.</span></a></span></b></span><u><span style="color: #0563c1; mso-themecolor: hyperlink;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Someone with a lot
of patience and $5.00, </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/en/transparency/access-to-information-and-privacy-acts/how-to-file-a-request"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">might think
about doing an Access To Information and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Privacy (aka “ATIP”) request</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
seeking documentation, including names of retired members and amounts paid for post-retirement
consideration of decisions in matters of which they have “begun to consider” pursuant
to the open-ended provision of s. 66.5(1). The provision reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Concluding
matters after membership expires<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 36pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">66.5
(1) A member of the Board whose term expires may conclude the matters that the
member has begun to consider.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It would
presumably be very easy for the Board to provide this information. The Board
has very good records going back to its inception in 1989. However, one should not
be surprised if the Board were to strongly resist such an ATIP request and even
spend a lot of money on outside counsel in the process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Concluding
Comments<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Currently, for
the first time ever, neither the Vice Chair nor the Secretary General have any
legal qualifications. The appointment of the current Vice Chair </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://federal-organizations.canada.ca/profil.php?OrgID=CB&t=1&lang=en"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">expires on September
30, 2023.</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> Moreover, there is a
notable absence of common law perspective at the Board – even more so than in
the past. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">On a positive
note, it appears that there will NOT be a Copyright Board “Town Hall” this year
under the auspices of the CBA at the annual </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.cba.org/CBA-IP-Day/Agenda"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CBA IP Day</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This should be a relief for those who
felt obliged to observe this <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-copyright-board-third-town-hall-on.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">unproductive ritual over the last few years</span></a></span></b></span>
that resulted in essentially nothing other than management platitudes and promises.
Here is the presentation of <span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2022-10/PRES%20-%202022-06-02%20-%20Nathalie%20Theberge%20presentation%20for%20the%20Canadian%20Bar%20Association%20IP%20Chapter%20%28Copyright%20Board%20Townhall%29%20-%20EN_0.pdf"><span style="color: #00b050;">Presentation by Nathalie Théberge, Vice-chair and Chief
Executive on Practical results of the Modernization of the Board</span></a></span></b></span>
from last year’s CBA Town Hall posted some time after the fact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The viability
of the Copyright Board in the future will depend on two seemingly simple
elements:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 115%; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Collectives must propose
tariffs for approval that offers good value, terms and conditions that make them
attractive for users, preferably without the need for interrogatories and
hearings; and,</span></li><li>The Board must develop
the expertise, efficiency, and determination to approve such tariff proposals, and,
if appropriate, make them even better in a short period of time measured in
weeks or months and not in years and not retroactively.</li></ol><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If the Board can
manage to expeditiously approve truly fair and equitable tariffs that offer
good value and convenience and, above all, provide necessary access to sufficient
repertoire, then there is a strong likelihood that such “tariffs” will be
utilized with enthusiasm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">However, one
can confidently expect that certain collectives, especially any with extremely limited
actual repertoire and a narrow view of what constitutes necessary “access”, are
busy lobbying hard for legislation to make tariffs effectively mandatory – in spite
of two clear Supreme Court of Canada decisions and case law going back decades.
Such legislation would be a very unfortunate move on the part of the Government
– and would likely give rise to prolonged litigation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">PS – beware the
forthcoming Budget on March 28, 2023 and budget implementation legislation –
where </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2022/04/oops-he-did-it-again-budget-2022-hides.html"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">we have twice
seen this Government break a major campaign promise</span></a></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
about not burying bad and irrelevant things in omnibus budget bills.</span></p><p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-13164844148888062052023-03-24T16:26:00.001-04:002023-03-24T16:27:42.411-04:00So I asked ChatGPT "Who is Howard Knopf?"<p> As of today:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><i>Who is Howard Knopf?</i></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Howard Knopf is a Canadian lawyer who specializes in
intellectual property law. He has been practicing law for over 40 years and is
considered one of Canada's foremost experts in copyright law. Knopf has been
involved in many high-profile copyright cases in Canada and is known for his
outspoken and often controversial views on copyright policy. He has been an
advocate for balanced copyright laws that respect the rights of creators while
also promoting access to information and innovation. In addition to his legal
practice, Knopf has also been a prolific writer on copyright issues, publishing
numerous articles and commentaries on the topic.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal">BTW, ChatGPT often provides different and even inconsistent answers to the same question when asked again. But I'm happy with the above for now on a Friday. 😉</p><p class="MsoNormal">HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-92225660359638960182023-03-13T16:19:00.004-04:002023-03-13T23:03:23.728-04:00Some Comments on Retired Copyright Board Chair Justice William Vancise’s 2017 Comments<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiskCtSEhAZH0kDVUxQshhz-PAGnp3elou0H6XTDddTedRl6H9zM3NTQAKjOvtOh1kCEIFVsgSOSalwXivTkiokfkRZStZUAxdUkrFab6l-83kHa6ozUcoqS957kGfl8dq0AKcF8XpBRP-V5aaaO-WdTxDPws3wzfsWUBu5C9j8SqGZJUR6Ce0/s200/vancise.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiskCtSEhAZH0kDVUxQshhz-PAGnp3elou0H6XTDddTedRl6H9zM3NTQAKjOvtOh1kCEIFVsgSOSalwXivTkiokfkRZStZUAxdUkrFab6l-83kHa6ozUcoqS957kGfl8dq0AKcF8XpBRP-V5aaaO-WdTxDPws3wzfsWUBu5C9j8SqGZJUR6Ce0/s1600/vancise.png" width="200" /></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">https://sasklawcourts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/William-Vancise.png</span></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">A<b> </b></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/article/view/2025/985"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">paper published in 2018</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> from the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/pdf/Vancise_bio.pdf"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Hon. William Vancise</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> former Chair of the
Copyright Board of Canada has recently been brought to my attention by an
astute copyright officer, namely Joshua Dickison from the University of New
Brunswick. The paper was presented at </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://kernochan.law.columbia.edu/content/exploring-international-copyrights-gaps-and-flexibilities"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">this prestigious event</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> at Columbia
Law School in 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice
William Vancise</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> was appointed as Chair of the
Copyright Board<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in 2004 and reappointed
in 2009. His term ended when he </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2014/11/more-on-recent-and-current-developments_28.html"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">retired from the Board on May 13, 2014,</span></b></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> although </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-notes-about-recent-developments-at.html"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">he took until January 19, 2018</span></b></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> to render his </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://decisions.cb-cda.gc.ca/cb-cda/decisions/en/item/366787/index.do"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">last decision</span></b><span style="background: white; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">– almost four years after his retirement. The
Board appears to be unique in terms of Canadian courts or tribunals in
permitting this kind of delay and disincentive to render timely decisions</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">, </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-copyright-board-begins-2021-with.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">as I have pointed out before.</span></a> </span></b></span><span style="background: white; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">The problem has still not been solved.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ironically, shortly after his
appointment, </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2019-09/2006-08-23-EN.pdf"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">he stated</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<i><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; mso-highlight: yellow; mso-shading: white;">I am not at all happy with the
time it takes to render a final decision. I have tried to address the issue and
I can assure you it will be resolved.</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> </span><b><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333;">If
the Supreme Court of Canada can render a decision within six months of a
hearing, there is no reason why this Board cannot do the same.</span></b><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #fcff01; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; background: rgb(252, 255, 1); color: #333333;"><b>My goal is to see that this
occurs.</b></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">” </span></i><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">(highlight and emphasis added)</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Judges of
the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have eight weeks after retirement
to render any pending decisions. Even Supreme Court of Canada justices have only
six months after they retire to participate in decisions in cases on which they
sat. The </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2014_1021_en.asp"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Canadian Judicial Council has specifically pronounced</span></b></a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> that “judges should render decisions
within six months of hearing a case, except in very complex matters or where
there are special circumstances.”</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">For better or worse, Justice Vancise
was often and explicitly publicly outspoken. Once again, and even more so than
in his previous pronouncements, he demonstrates his sometimes contentious and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>problematic views about essential copyright
and Copyright Board fundamentals in this 2018 publication by:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Reimagining and
redefining the meaning of “compulsory licence” in the context of copyright law;</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">By continuing
and indeed amplifying his apparent lack of appreciation for the copyright contributions
of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada;</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%;">By ignoring the fact that a </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2016/11/senate-committee-calls-for-thorough-in.html"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;">Senate Committee found the Copyright Board was “dysfunctional”</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">two years earlier;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%;">By elevating the wasteful and almost
useless “unlocatable” copyright owner regime to something supposedly important.
To his credit, while was Chairman, Justice Vancise finally reversed years of
wasted time and resources at the Board related to issuing unnecessary licences
to use architectural plans for home renovation – </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #00b050;">but </span></b></span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/search?q=unlocatable+netupsky"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;">only after I publicly pointed out</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%;"> that the Board had long been oblivious for
years to directly applicable Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence; and,</span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%;">By following in the pattern of too many
seasoned officials and/or politicians who have blamed the failure of their
institutions on a lack of resources and calling for more resources rather than
more expertise and efficiency. Once again, it must be noted the Copyright Board
long had a budget greater than the Competition Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Competition
Tribunal’s website has mysteriously gone from excellent to something very much
less and very out of date in terms of reports, so its current budget is not
readily apparent. It bears repeating that the Copyright Board has held only one
actual hearing in more than last five years.</span></li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Vancise admits that he came to
the Board without intellectual property expertise. He states by way of
introduction to this paper:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Although
I am not an expert in intellectual property, I was fortunate to hear and decide
cases including the transmission of music on the Internet, interpretation of
the blank<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">media
levy, making available right, and fair dealing disputes surrounding licensing<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">for
educational institutions. <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">The
Board decides more copyright issues than any </span></span></i><i><span style="background: yellow; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">other court or tribunal in Canada.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The highlighted portion is, of course, quite
wrong. The fact is that that the Copyright Board’s substantive decisions on
copyright legal issues have been relatively few and very often wrong as
determined by judicial review. The Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal,
the Supreme Court of Canada and even superior courts of the provinces have been
far more active and influential in terms of substantive copyright law.
Moreover, he fails to accept that that <a href="https://scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM070_Intervener_Ariel-Katz.pdf"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;">the primary role of the Copyright Board
is to set rates</span></b>,</a> terms and conditions and NOT to gratuitously
stray from this important but narrow lane into incorrect pronouncements about such
matters as deeming a device to be an audio recording medium or the effect of a
WIPO treaty on Canadian legislation. Even if the statute permitted such
departures from rate setting as necessarily incidental to the Board doing its
job of rate setting, the Board has never had the mandate or the legal expertise
to make significant and credibly correct legal rulings of this nature. Even if
there is some backroom legal expertise, this only exacerbates the problem
because that is not where important rulings should emanate. There is an ancient
and honourable maxim that </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/procedural-fairness.html"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“whoever hears must decide.”</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
The problem is exacerbated when there is a Vice Chair and Secretary General
with no legal qualifications. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It is important to reiterate that the
SCC has repeatedly held, and </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2022/08/there-is-no-new-making-available-right.html"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">as recently as in 2022</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;">,</span></b></span></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
that t<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">he Copyright Board will be
held to the demanding “correctness” standard of review when it comes to
interpreting the <i>Copyright Act</i> because it shares concurrent first
instance jurisdiction with the Superior Courts. The Board will be given no
deference for being “reasonable” in its interpretation of the substantive
provisions of <i>Copyright Act.</i></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Vancise is wrong that there is a
need for more resources for the Board. If anything, the opposite is true. The
parties before the Board are generally very competent. The Board members should
decide based on the parities’ evidence and arguments – and not what they hear
behind the scenes from their staff. That is NOT the way courts and tribunals
are supposed to work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Justice Vancise’s successors, Justice
Robert Blair from the Ontario Court of Appeal and Justice Luc Martineau from
the Federal Court have been a complete contrast by refraining from public
expression of so many prolific and outspoken views. For whatever reason,
Justice Blair served only one term as Chair of the Copyright Board from 2015 to
2020. Justice Martineau, retired from the Federal Court, was appointment in
2020 for a five year term. Since his appointment, there has only been one
hearing and no decisions of any major consequence. Both have been extremely
circumspect in terms of public comments about the Board. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Indeed, the last Board decision of any
possible major consequence was the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://decisions.cb-cda.gc.ca/cb-cda/l/en/item/481691/index.do"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">redetermination of the SODRAC tariff for CBC</span></b></a></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
following the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision. That was decided on June
26, 2020 with Chairman Blair presiding. Most, if not all, of the tariffs and
decisions since then have effectively been unopposed and unimportant.
Interestingly, there have been a lot of withdrawn tariffs – perhaps somehow
arising from the Supreme Court’s ruling that Board tariffs are not legally
mandatory for users.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It should be acknowledged that Justice Vancise
was an enthusiastic Chair of the Copyright Board and deserves credit for his
attempts to constructively improve its operation. Unfortunately, his initial
assurance that decisions would be rendered within six months of a hearing was
not fulfilled. His frank public comments were frankly sometimes<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>inappropriate in terms of appreciating the
role of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, which
clearly have the power to overrule the Board when it is incorrect on substantive
law. The FCA and the SCC deserve great respect not only because of their
institutional role <i>vis a vis</i> the Board but because of the overall
quality of their decisions. It is important to reiterate that, even after V<i>avilov</i>,
the Courts have carved out a special niche for the correctness standard of review
when it comes to Copyright Board decisions, and rightly so since copyright
litigation in the superior courts is affecting thousands of individuals and
many very large corporations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Whether or not it was appropriate for
him to do so, Justice Vancise did speak the truth when he notes in this paper the
problem with Access Copyright’s “business model” and that “The real problems
are parties like Music Canada, who manipulate the copyright system..”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span>The Copyright Board is headed for some
interesting times and existential scrutiny, and Justice Vancise’s 2018 publication
is an interesting contribution to the debates that lie ahead. It will be
particularly interesting to see whether he has been only speaking for himself
with his more contentious views or whether they somehow represent the ingrained
institutional views of an arguably still, if not even more than ever,
“dysfunctional” Copyright Board.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span>More to follow shortly re the Copyright
Board’s latest tinkering with procedure and aspirations for an additional $1 million
a year…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-88769533664820058362023-02-02T16:17:00.001-05:002023-02-02T16:17:40.958-05:00I asked ChatGPT on February 2 , 2023: "who is the most successful copyright litigator in Canada?"<p>I asked ChatGPT on <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">February 2 , 2023</span>: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">who is the most successful copyright litigator in Canada?"</span></p><div style="background-color: white; border: 1pt solid rgb(217, 217, 227); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; padding: 0cm;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 5pt; padding: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><i>It is difficult to determine the most successful copyright litigator in Canada as success in litigation can be measured in various ways such as the number of cases won, the impact of the cases, the size of settlements, and more. Additionally, the legal industry is constantly evolving, and new players may emerge. As of my training data cut-off in 2021, some of the well-known copyright litigators in Canada include<span style="background-color: yellow;"> Barry Sookman, Tamir Israel, and Howard Knopf.</span></i></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 17.12px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 17.12px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">Note - I asked the question several times and sometimes got non-answers or somewhat non-sensical answers....But the above was the first and most interesting....😉</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 17.12px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">Maybe ChatGPT is emulating human intelligence by being somewhat inconsistent and even illogical at times...</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 17.12px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 17.12px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-59717108611381672672023-01-29T14:43:00.002-05:002023-01-29T14:43:46.492-05:00I asked ChatGPT: "What are the criticisms of Access Copyright?"<p><span style="color: #343541; font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">What
are the criticisms of Access Copyright?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="background: #F7F7F8; border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p style="background: #F7F7F8; border: none; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;"><i>Access Copyright has been criticized for a number of reasons,
including:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
</div>
<div style="background: #F7F7F8; border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt;">
<p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(59,130,246,0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background: #F7F7F8; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;">The cost of licensing: Some organizations, particularly schools
and universities, have complained that the fees charged by Access Copyright are
too high.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(59,130,246,0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background: #F7F7F8; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;">The scope of the license: Critics have argued that the scope of
the license offered by Access Copyright is too broad and that it covers uses of
copyrighted materials that should not require a license.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(59,130,246,0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background: #F7F7F8; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;">The impact on fair dealing: Some critics have argued that the
licensing scheme offered by Access Copyright undermines the principle of fair
dealing, which allows for the use of copyrighted materials without permission
for certain purposes such as research and private study.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(59,130,246,0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background: #F7F7F8; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;">The lack of transparency in the distribution of royalties: Some
copyright holders have complained that they do not receive enough information
on how royalties are distributed and that they do not receive enough royalties
for their works.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(59,130,246,0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background: #F7F7F8; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt; padding: 0cm; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></i><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif;"><i>The copyright collectives such as Access Copyright are seen as
outdated and unnecessary in the digital age where copyright holders have more
direct ways to license their content.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>HPK </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br /></o:p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-61953368492538452172023-01-29T13:20:00.000-05:002023-01-29T13:20:18.811-05:00I asked ChatGPT: "Who is the most important copyright scholar in Canada?"<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Who is the most important
copyright scholar in Canada?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">It's difficult to say who the
most important copyright scholar in Canada is, as the field of copyright is
broad and there are many scholars who have made significant contributions.
However, there are a few scholars who have made significant contributions to
the field of copyright law in Canada and are considered experts in the field.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">One such scholar is <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Michael Geist</span>, who is a law
professor at the University of Ottawa and a leading expert on Canadian and
international copyright law. He is known for his research and advocacy on
issues related to copyright and the internet, and has written extensively on
the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Another notable scholar is <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Ariel Katz,</span> who is a law
professor at the University of Toronto, and an expert on copyright law, and
intellectual property. He is known for his research on copyright and digital
media, and his contributions to the field of copyright law, and the impact of
technology on the copyright system.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Finally, one of the most respected copyright
scholars in Canada is <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">David Vaver</span>, who is a retired law professor from Osgoode
Hall Law School, York University. He is the author of "Canadian Copyright
Law" a well-known reference book on the subject, and his contributions to
the field of copyright law have been widely recognized.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">It's important to note that these are just a few
examples of scholars who are considered experts in the field of copyright law
in Canada, and there are many other accomplished scholars and researchers that
have made significant contributions to the field.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>Highlight added...</o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>HPK <br /></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-40811095777362284122023-01-26T16:39:00.000-05:002023-01-26T16:39:33.636-05:00ChatGPT gets an "F" on "Are Access Copyright's copyright board tariffs "mandatory" in Canada?"<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Are Access Copyright's copyright
board tariffs "mandatory" in Canada?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Access Copyright's copyright
board tariffs are considered "mandatory" in Canada in the sense that
they are legally binding tariffs that must be paid by certain organizations,
such as educational institutions, in order to reproduce copyrighted materials.
However, it should be noted that not all organizations are legally required to
pay these tariffs and there are some exceptions and limitations to the tariffs.
Additionally, some organizations and individuals may choose to use alternative
methods for obtaining copyrighted materials, such as licensing or fair dealing.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Well, maybe their database is out of
date or they haven’t read my<b><span style="color: #00b050;"> <a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><span style="color: #00b050;">blog.</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The above is wrong, of course. An “F” grade…<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Or is that no longer allowed, if it might upset the AI robot?</p><p class="MsoNormal">HPK</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">HPK<o:p></o:p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-64335383824190091462023-01-26T13:47:00.000-05:002023-01-26T13:47:15.816-05:00 I just asked ChatGPT: "What is the difference between "antitrust" law in the USA and "competition" law in Canada?" <p> I just asked ChatGPT: "What is the
difference between "antitrust" law in the USA and
"competition" law in Canada?" </p>
<div style="border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Antitrust
law and competition law are similar in that they both aim to promote fair
competition and prevent monopolies. However, there are some key differences
between the antitrust laws in the United States and the competition laws in
Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In the United States, antitrust laws are primarily
enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and are governed by the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. These laws
prohibit certain types of business practices, such as price fixing and
monopolization, and are designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive
business practices.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In Canada, competition law is governed by the
Competition Act and is enforced by the Competition Bureau. The Competition Act
prohibits a variety of anti-competitive practices, such as price fixing,
predatory pricing, and exclusive dealing. It also has a merger review process
to ensure that mergers and acquisitions do not result in a substantial
lessening or prevention of competition.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In summary, both antitrust and competition laws in
USA and Canada have the same goal to promote fair competition and prevent
monopolies, but the specific laws, agencies, and processes for enforcing these
laws can vary.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> That response was virtually instant...</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK<o:p></o:p></span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-13034863871591947412023-01-26T13:34:00.000-05:002023-01-26T13:34:44.659-05:00I just asked ChatGPT: "What is the difference between copyright "fair use" in the USA and "fair dealing" in Canada?"<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SHAPE <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:rect
id="Rectangle_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" alt="hknopf@gmail.com" style='width:24pt;
height:24pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;mso-left-percent:-10001;
mso-top-percent:-10001;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line;mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;
v-text-anchor:top' o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC75UiUBQEAAB4CAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKSRvU7DMBSF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" filled="f" stroked="f">
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
<w:wrap type="none"/>
<w:anchorlock/>
</v:rect><![endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75"
coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe"
filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><![endif]--><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><v:shape
id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:24pt;height:24pt'>
<v:imagedata croptop="-65520f" cropbottom="65520f"/>
</v:shape><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">I just asked ChatGPT "What is the difference between
copyright "fair use" in the USA and "fair dealing" in
Canada?"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Here’s the answer I got in a few
seconds:</span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> </span></p><div style="border: solid #D9D9E3 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">In the United States, "fair
use" is a doctrine in copyright law that allows for limited use of
copyrighted material without the need for permission from the copyright holder.
This is determined on a case-by-case basis and takes into account factors such
as the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used,
and the effect of the use on the market for the original work.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 15.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">In Canada, "fair dealing" is a similar
doctrine that allows for the use of copyrighted material without permission in
certain circumstances, such as for the purpose of research, private study,
criticism, review, news reporting, education, satire, and parody. The purpose
of the use is considered to be the most important factor in determining if it
is fair dealing.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid #D9D9E3 .25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Both fair use and fair dealing are limited
exceptions to copyright infringement and are subject to interpretation by the
courts.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>Not bad… <span style="font-family: "Segoe UI Emoji", sans-serif;">😉</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>HPK</p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-36879064275395735482022-12-16T15:49:00.000-05:002022-12-16T15:49:29.902-05:00Copyright Board Annual Report 2021-2022<p><span style="line-height: 107%;">The Copyright Board’s recently posted </span><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/2022-11-01%20-%202021-2022%20AR-EN_1.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">2021-2022 Annual Report</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%;"> (“Report”) covers
the period from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzMC7hm-gvsDqxYPZSX7iJBGJkZGiUlOGRliBAqkMRXz2BGx-bTux0iUXqOkgB7AfPjpuD0MAOrbV6Zh4mo3PbDSXxZ-4G4V6HlksF72Vn1HscWE9aMsUoOr9mJlIo0dVAAYl4JNPDNYUaMfCzyp0CRzKV5K-ClasHIUlWxifF1rZwVvlnV0/s904/Picture1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="670" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzMC7hm-gvsDqxYPZSX7iJBGJkZGiUlOGRliBAqkMRXz2BGx-bTux0iUXqOkgB7AfPjpuD0MAOrbV6Zh4mo3PbDSXxZ-4G4V6HlksF72Vn1HscWE9aMsUoOr9mJlIo0dVAAYl4JNPDNYUaMfCzyp0CRzKV5K-ClasHIUlWxifF1rZwVvlnV0/s320/Picture1.png" width="237" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Copyright Board)</span></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">What does this full-page collage with
this uncredited photograph on page 13 the Board’s Report possibly have to do
with Canada’s Copyright Board? I, for one, have no idea. But it takes up a
whole page, along with several other diverting and uninformative photographs in
this Report that is overall mostly devoid of any actual useful information. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">That’s regrettable as the deadline for
objecting to proposed tariffs looms and potential objectors have to decide
whether or not to become vulnerable to potentially extremely intrusive and
invasive interrogatories, expert witness costs, and huge legal expenses to deal
with tariffs that the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">has confirmed with crystalline clarity are NOT MANDATORY</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">.</span></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
More on this below…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Chairman’s “Message” to the Report notes
that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The 2021‒2022
fiscal year was also marked by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">York v. Access Copyright</span>,
an important decision <a name="_Hlk120989260">that <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">clarifies</span>, among other things, the scope of
tariffs approved by the Board.</a> <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">This decision will certainly have an impact on the Board’s ability to
deliver on its mandate, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">but it will be
some time before we see the concrete results of this decision</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">,</b> including the cumulative effect of
the decision and the changes made to the Copyright Act in 2019.</span></i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(highlight
and emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The York decision from the Supreme
Court of Canada (“SCC’) is, of course, the elephant in the room at the
Copyright Board. It is difficult to comprehend what “concrete results” of the
York decision the Board does not understand. The </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">SCC clearly ruled that:</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Access
Copyright’s tariff as approved by the Copyright Board is not mandatory for
users<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It was
unnecessary and inappropriate for the Courts below to issue a declaration about
fair dealing in these circumstances<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Nonetheless,
there were serious errors in the Courts below noted concerning their
pronouncements about fair dealing, e.g. re “aggregate” copying.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">While there may be more “results” in
the future, the above is already as clear as can be. The SCC decision more than
“clarifies, among other things, the scope of tariffs approved by the Board”. It
unambiguously declares that Board tariffs for Access Copyright are NOT
mandatory and not enforceable and makes important statements about fair dealing.
BTW, I was honoured to have played a very</span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/08/victory-and-vindication-for-canadian.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> major role and to have made the prevailing arguments as</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
counsel for my esteemed client </span><a href="https://www.carl-abrc.ca/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CARL</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> in the SCC in getting
this result. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">These are rulings that the Board <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>must</u></b> follow – now and not if and
when the Board finally can “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">see the concrete results of this
decision</span></i></b>”. The Board may not like the decision – but the Board
is bound by it. Even if the SCC’s statements about fair dealing are technically
“<i>obiter dicta</i>” under the circumstances, SCC <i>obiter dicta</i> –
especially when it is so pointed, on point, and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>precise as in the instance – is as good as
law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In the past, the Board has at times appeared
to be hostile to the SCC and Federal Court of Appeal. One had hoped that this had
passed. I wrote </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2009/11/justice-vancise-on-courts-and-copyright.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">here</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in 2009 about how former and then sitting Board
Chair Justice William Vancise expressed his frank views. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Board cannot even bring itself to
use the “M” word, i.e. “mandatory”, in relation to its tariffs<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>- or more precisely “not mandatory” - in this
Report – which was the essence of the SCC case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Indeed, the only place the Board uses
the “M” word is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“mandatory training required as
part of organizational measures to prevent and address workplace harassment and
violence”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Board is no doubt hoping, along
with Access Copyright and other collectives and content owner lobbyists, that
the Government will try to undo the SCC’s York ruling and curtail fair dealing
in the educational sector. That, of course, would be an enormous legislative,
political, and legal mistake that will likely result in costly litigation and
uncertainty for years to come. Of course, the Board would probably use such
uncertainty to justify more deflection and delay and, no doubt, to demand and
even bigger budget so that it can analyze the obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Interestingly, although the period of the
report ends on March 31, 2022, it does NOT mention the </span><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jqgw0"><b><i><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">ESA v.
SOCAN</span></i></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> “making available” case that was argued
in the SCC in January of 2022 and decided on July 15, 2022.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That result was another existential body blow
to the Copyright Board, holding, in effect, that the Board got it very wrong in
its ill-advised and very wasteful venture into international law and that the
Board “</span><a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2022/08/"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">will be held to the “correctness” standard of review</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> when it comes to interpreting the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Copyright Act</i> because it shares
concurrent first instance jurisdiction with the Superior Courts. The Board will
be given no deference for being “reasonable” in its interpretation of the
substantive provisions of <i>Copyright Act.</i> It must be correct.
Importantly, this is the first new category of correctness review since the
landmark SCC Vavilov decision.</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Report contains some interesting
language about how the Board is “constrained” by decisions of the Courts. It
would have been more accurate and more respectful to say that the Board is
subject to <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and guided by rulings of the
Courts – both in the form of judicial review and other decisions that may call
into question the reasonableness or even the correctness of the Board’s
decisions – as was the case in the York University litigation, in which Access
Copyright sought – ultimately unsuccessfully – to enforce the Board’s tariff
ruling.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If the Board is to serve any useful
purpose and to have a long-term future, it would do well to focus on its
mandate and to stay in its lane – which is all about and only about:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Rate setting <o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Establishing tariffs
that – while not mandatory – are sufficiently attractive and reflect good
enough value that users will voluntarily adopt and maybe even embrace them.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I have always said that there are
tariffs that are “<i>de facto</i>” if not “d<i>e jure</i>” mandatory – such as
those of SOCAN and Re:Sound. If you operate a radio or TV station, there is no
other way to clear these music rights other than to avoid the process by
playing only public domain music and public domain sound recordings. Those
tariffs have mostly been fairly reasonable because there has been sufficient
competent organized opposition over the years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">On the other hand, inexperienced
objectors with insufficient resources to spend easily five and even six or
seven figures opposing a tariff will eventually be worn down by the inevitable
irrelevant and oppressive interrogatories that the Board has shown little or no
commitment to curtailing. Even the </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2012/05/aucc-settlement-with-access-copyright.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">AUCC (now Universities Canada) was forced to withdraw from the
Access Copyright tariff case in 2012</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, although it might have handled the whole matter very
differently.</span></b></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The major collectives have only limited
interest in making the Board better. It seems that their limited interest is only
in making the Board a faster and cheaper place to do business. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Many users are now going to be asking
themselves whether there’s any point in getting into the quagmire and quicksand
of a Copyright Board tariff proceeding at potentially enormous expense<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and opening their doors to offering
collectives such as Access Copyright a potential treasure trove of
interrogatory material. If the Board somehow manages to come up with a tariff
that offers good value, a user can then sign a licence based upon it.
Otherwise, for example with Access Copyright, the user can ignore the tariff
and get licences, when needed, in other more efficient ways for far better
value – which is precisely what so many institutions have been doing for nearly
a decade with total vindication since the Access Copyright’s “tariffs” have
been declared as NOT MANDATORY by the SCC in 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Collectives have almost always done
very well at the Board, though not so much in the Federal Court of Appeal and
definitely not so much in the Supreme Court of Canada. Board proceedings have
almost always been very profitable – with the costs being borne by members and
the public.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In the past, tariff proceedings were
usually a bankable cash cow for collectives. One notable but apparently
isolated exception was Access Copyright’s attempt to get lots of money from provincial
governments, outside Quebec. I </span><a href="http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2015/05/possible-fallout-from-copyright-boards.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">wrote about this at some lengthy back in 2015:</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">To
recapitulate, the Board awarded a tariff of 11.56 ¢ per FTE (full time
equivalent) for the period 2005-2009 and 49.71 ¢ per FTE for 2010-2014. That’s
less than 1% and about 2% respectively of what AC asked for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the Board, the tariff will
generate a total of only about $370,000 over its ten year period – which is
likely only a small fraction of the costs involved in obtaining the tariff.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here is </span><a href="https://decisions.cb-cda.gc.ca/cb-cda/decisions/en/item/366791/index.do"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that decision</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">,</span></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
interestingly with Justice Vancise as chair of the panel, which hopefully will
be kept in mind by all concerned as Access Copyright attempts to impose a </span><a href="https://cb-cda.gc.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/PROTAR-Access%20Copyright-Post-Secondary-2024-2026-EN.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">tariff for 2024-2026</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> for
post-secondary institutions as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(a) $15.65, if
the educational institution is a university; or<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(b) $6.01, if
another educational institution.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The 2021-2022 Report contains virtually
nothing new or interesting. Is all about management platitudes, e.g.:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Expected
Outcomes<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Board
strives to be a credible institution, well-respected both by the creators and
the users of copyrighted material, because of the efficiency of its operations
and its unique expertise in copyright matters.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It has adapted
and will adapt with resilience and agility to the challenges posed by a
constantly evolving legal and economic environment, whether at the national or
international level, while offering high-quality support to parties and the
public requesting its services.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The never ending tinkering with
procedures – such as requiring “grounds” for new tariffs and objections at an
early stage – is simply obvious and won’t change anything. The requirement for
“fair and equitable” tariffs is hardly new – what else has the Board and its
predecessor supposedly been doing for the last eight decades?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Bottom line: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The vast majority of the “tariffs”
approved by the Board are no brainer unopposed rubber stamp exercises that
somehow still take a very long time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The unlocatable owner regime is an
embarrassing waste of time and resources. Hopefully, it doesn’t still consume </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/search?q=unlocatable&max-results=20&by-date=false"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">a whole FTE resource as then Chair William Vancise confirmed in
2014.</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> With </span><a href="https://decisions.cb-cda.gc.ca/cb-cda/refusees-other-autre/en/nav_date.do"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">only one <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>inconsequential
rulings visible in the 2021-2022</span></b><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>reporting period, it would be difficult to
understand how this took more than a very few hours at the most to deal with.
The <i>Copyright Act</i> could be amended to deal with these increasingly rare
situations as an exception along with other specific exceptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Board is continuing to try to
justify itself as an important and essential quasi-judicial tribunal, which it
once was. However, it has failed to clearly get beyond the<span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"> </span></b></span></span><a href="https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/BANC/reports/FINALVERSIONCopyright_e.pdf"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“dysfunctional”</span></b></a><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> description
conferred by a Senate Committee in 2016 and continues to be an expensive and
unproductive though paradoxically high profile presence in the Canadian
administrative tribunal landscape. It has held only one hearing in the last
five years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Its proposed new Rules of Practice and
Procedure will likely accomplish little or nothing – other than to provide an
excuse for the Board to </span><a href="https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2022/2022-06-18/html/reg1-eng.html"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">demand an additional $1 million a year to its already inflated
budget:</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The <b>costs of
the proposal are expected to be less than $1 million annually</b>. While
Parties would be required to provide information earlier on in proceedings, the
amount or type of information required from Parties would be the same as under
the current Model Directive. </span></i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(emphasis added)<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If the Board is to have any credibility
and serve any useful purpose going forward, it needs competent, independent and
balanced management with legal expertise in both civil and common law and – of
course – in copyright law. The Board’s Members should, of course, reflect these
requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s really too bad that the ISED
Minister <span style="background: white; color: #536471;">@FP_Champagne </span>seems
to be apparently 100% missing in action on what is going on here – although
it’s 100% his responsibility.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Happy Holidays to one an all!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">HPK<o:p></o:p></span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-9590527593481235932022-11-29T12:06:00.001-05:002022-11-29T12:08:47.377-05:00Canadian Copyright Term Extension: Is December 30, 2022 Perhaps Premature Proclamation?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://images.ourontario.ca/Partners/CKLPL/CKLPL003730749.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="322" height="400" src="https://images.ourontario.ca/Partners/CKLPL/CKLPL003730749.jpg" width="322" /></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 9pt;">(not the recent
proclamation)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%;">During
the CUSMA negotiations with the Trump administration, Canada sadly handed over
a gratuitous gift that will mostly by far benefit American copyright owners by
extending the term of copyright for 20 years. Canada made a bad decision even
worse by ignoring the considered legal and policy analyses by the former US
Register of Copyrights, </span><a href="https://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2021/03/lets-listen-to-former-american-register.html"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Maria Pallante</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%;">and Canada’s own Minister of Justice, David Lametti, when he
was a law professor, explaining that a registration requirement for the
additional 20 years would be perfectly acceptable under international law. Such
a requirement would have gone a long way to clearing out deadwood and
preserving a more vibrant public domain. </span><a href="https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/strategic-policy-sector/en/marketplace-framework-policy/copyright-policy/submissions-consultation-how-implement-canadas-cusma-commitment-extend-general-term-copyright/howard-p-knopf"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I pointed all this and more out</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%;"> last year to the Government in response to the
disingenuous consultation that was based upon faulty analysis and that ignored
my and many others carefully researched analyses.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now, to arguably
add insult to injury, the Government has proclaimed the new 20-year extension
into force very possibly two crucial days earlier than necessary – namely on
December 30, 2022 rather than January 1, 2023. That matters a lot because it
deprives Canadians of the cohort of material that would have entered the public
domain on January 1, 2023 from the creators who died in 1972. </span><a href="https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42842&lang=en"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here is</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> the Proclamation:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Her Excellency the Governor General in Council,
on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, under section 281 of the </span></i><i><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">, chapter 10 of the Statutes of Canada, 2022, <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">fixes December 30, 2022</span>
as the day on which Division 16 of Part 5 of that Act comes into force.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Perhaps
the most notable Canadian death in 1972 was that of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Lester B. Pearson</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;">,</span></b></span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> the great 14<sup>th</sup> Prime Minister of
Canada and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Historians won’t be happy about waiting
another 20 years to gain full access to any of Pearson’s important writings
that may be needlessly protected in the meantime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://internetarchivecanada.org/2022/11/23/a-missed-opportunity-to-revive-obscure-canadian-literature/"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here’s</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> what Internet Archive Canada had to say. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">For
copyright and international law geeks, here’s the </span><a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/implementation-mise_en_oeuvre.aspx?lang=eng#87"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">CUSMA deal:</span></b></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">For Section H, amendments to Canadian legislation are
required to meet the obligations under Article 20.62 and
Article 20.67. The CUSMA Implementation Act implements these obligations
by amending the Copyright Act. Canada <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">has a transition period of 2.5 years</span>
following the date of entry into force of the Agreement to implement the
obligation in Article 20.62(a) related to extending Canada’s general term
of protection to life of the author plus 70 years (up from plus
50 years).</span><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here’s where it says we had “2.5 years”
to implement this deal from the day that CUSMA came into force:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/text-texte/20.aspx?lang=eng"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Article 20.89: Final Provisions</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 29.25pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8.65pt; margin-left: 29.25pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">4.
With regard to obligations subject to a transition period, Canada shall fully
implement its obligations under the provisions of this Chapter no later than
the expiration of the relevant time period specified below, which begins on the
date of entry into force of this Agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 76.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 65.25pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">(a) Article 20.7.2(f) (International
Agreements), four years;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 76.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 65.25pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">(b) Article 20.44 (Patent Term
Adjustment for Unreasonable Granting Authority Delays), 4.5 years; and<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 76.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 65.25pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-highlight: yellow;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: yellow; color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-highlight: yellow;">(c)
Article 20.62(a) (Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights), 2.5
years.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/implementation-mise_en_oeuvre.aspx?lang=eng"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Here’s</span></b></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"> </span></b></span><span style="line-height: 107%;">where
it says that CUSMA came into force on July 1, 2020:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">On
November 30, 2018, Canada, the United States and Mexico signed a
protocol to replace the 1994 <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">North
American Free Trade Agreement</span> (NAFTA) with the <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement</span> (CUSMA
or Agreement). Under the protocol, NAFTA would be formally replaced by CUSMA
upon entry into force of the new Agreement. On December 10, 2019, the
Parties agreed to modify certain elements of the Agreement to improve the final
outcome in the areas of state-to-state dispute settlement, labour, environment,
intellectual property and rules of origin. The Parties subsequently provided
their formal notifications of the completion of domestic procedures in
April 2020. <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">Under the
terms of the protocol, entry into force of CUSMA was set for
July 1, 2020.</span> The <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Canada-United
States Free Trade Agreement</span> (CUSFTA), which was suspended upon
entry into force of NAFTA, remains suspended until such time as the suspension
of CUSFTA is terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now, the arithmetic appears quite
simple. Whether “2.5 years” means 2 years and 6 months or 2 years and 183 days,
that would take us to January 1, 2023 and NOT December 30, 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">See also the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="background: white; color: #00b050;"><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21/page-2.html#docCont"><span style="color: #00b050; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Interpretation Act:<o:p></o:p></span></a></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Calculation
of a period of months after or before a specified day</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: yellow; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">28 Where there is a reference to a
period of time consisting of a number of months after or before a specified
day, the period is calculated by<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: yellow; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">(a) counting forward or backward from
the specified day the number of months, without including the month in which
that day falls;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: yellow; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">(b) excluding the specified day; and<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: yellow; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;">(c) including in the last month counted
under paragraph (a) the day that has the same calendar number as the specified
day or, if that month has no day with that number, the last day of that month.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><i>Construction
of year</i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i>37
(1) <span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;">The expression year
means any period of twelve consecutive months</span>, except that a reference</i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(a)
to a calendar year means a period of twelve consecutive months commencing on
January 1;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(b)
to a financial year or fiscal year means, in relation to money provided by
Parliament, or the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or the accounts, taxes or
finances of Canada, the period beginning on April 1 in one calendar year and
ending on March 31 in the next calendar year; and<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">(c)
by number to a Dominical year means the period of twelve consecutive months
commencing on January 1 of that Dominical year.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>I don’t profess any great expertise in
the machinery of government when it comes to calculations of these kinds of
deadlines or proclamations by the Governor in Council. So, if I’m wrong, I would
welcome any reasoned correction and be a little more humble and a little less
cynical.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But if I’m right about this being a
premature proclamation, the Government owes Canadians an overdue explanation.
However, given the handling of this term extension issue all along, it would not
be prudent to hold one’s breath.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span>HPK</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-63852720530407930552022-11-11T11:45:00.001-05:002022-11-11T11:46:54.017-05:00Fair Dealing and the University of Toronto<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/University_College%2C_University_of_Toronto.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="225" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/University_College%2C_University_of_Toronto.jpg" width="400" /></a></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The University of
Toronto has sued a tutoring company, Easy Group Inc., for copyright
infringement. Here is the </span><b style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-sues-easy-edu-tutoring-company"><span style="color: #00b050;">U of T announcement</span></a></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> dated May 11,
2022.</span></p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Since there is
growing interest in this case, I have obtained the pleadings and post them here:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/606850228/t-948-22-Doc1-SOC"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Statement of Claim</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> dated May 9, 2022<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/606850234/T-948-22-6-24-22-SoD-and-CC"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Statement of Defence and Counterclaim</span></a></span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> dated June 24, 2022<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/606850232/AMENDED-Statement-of-Defence-and-Counterclaim-Defendant-Easy-Group-Inc-18-AUG-2022"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim</span></a></span></b></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US">dated August 18, 2022<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050;"><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/606850230/UofT-Reply-Defence-to-CC-Stamped"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Reply and Statement of Defence to
Counterclaim</span></a></span></b></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US">dated September 9, 2022<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I make no comment
on this case at this time, other than that it is clear from the pleadings that
fair dealing could be a very major issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Speaking of fair
dealing, U of T has recently revised its 2012 Fair Dealing Guidelines. Here’s
the </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><b><span style="color: #00b050; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://memos.provost.utoronto.ca/revised-fair-dealing-guidelines-and-copyright-basics-faq-documents/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">announcement from
October 21, 2022 with links</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Unlike the 2012 Guidelines,
</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">I had no involvement in the 2022 revision.
Other than that, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I make no
comment at this time on the 2022 U of T revised Fair Dealing Guidelines. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">HPK</span></p>Howard Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com0