However, the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled on July 12, 2012 in the ESAC v. SOCAN case that the delivery of a file over the internet in the case of a
downloaded video game did not constitute “communication” of that file and that
the Copyright Board was wrong to establish a layered tariff scheme that required
multiple payments for the same transaction and was inconsistent with the
principle of technological neutrality and the goal of efficiency that the
collective system is intended to promote.
The phone providers
are asking for their money back, a declaration that the
transmission of a ringtone is not a communication to the public by
telecommunication, and, in the alternative, that Tariff 24 “constitutes a jurisdictional
violation of and is ultra vires the Copyright Act.”
Here’s the Statement
of Claim. Despite its brevity, it raises some very important issues and
could have far reaching effects if the litigation is successful.
HPK
PS - The same reasoning regarding downloads of music files for songs and albums (though not streaming) was applied by the SCC in the Rogers v. SOCAN case also decided on July 12, 2012. I don't know what is happening with any money that may have been paid to SOCAN on account of this activity before July 12, 2012.
PS - The same reasoning regarding downloads of music files for songs and albums (though not streaming) was applied by the SCC in the Rogers v. SOCAN case also decided on July 12, 2012. I don't know what is happening with any money that may have been paid to SOCAN on account of this activity before July 12, 2012.
So - if I bought a ringtone from Bell, should I be looking for any refund from them if they succeed in this?
ReplyDelete