(Wikimedia)
We can look forward to a lot of lawyering and lobbying
devoted to copyright in Canada in 2017.
In the meantime, on the litigation front, we are awaiting
important judgments in several cases, including the following that have been
heard with the decision pending:
- We can probably expect a decision sooner rather than later from the Federal Court in Phase I of the Access Copyright v. York U litigation. Indeed, the decision could come any time now, since final arguments were made June 22 - 24, 2016 and the Federal Court usually renders judgments within six months or less. The decision will likely deal with whether the "interim tariff" that is the basis of the litigation was "mandatory" and York's fair dealing guidelines. These were the key "Phase I" issues.
- We can expect a decision in RE:SOUND v. CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS ET AL, on judicial review from the Copyright Board, which was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) on February 24, 2016. The long delay is unusual for a Court that usually renders decisions in a few weeks and normally less than six months.
- We can expect a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal in the judicial review of the AC K-12 decision from the Copyright Board, which was heard on November 22, 2016. Likewise, there will very likely be a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal in the judicial review of the AC Provincial Government tariff, which was heard on June 20, 2016, in which fair dealing was a major issue. Although these cases were heard by different panels on different dates, there are some common issues and the decisions may very well come down together and will presumably be consistent.
- At some point, there will be a decision from the Copyright Board in the AC Post-Secondary tariff case, from which the interim tariff that gave rise to the York University litigation arose. This case, which began in 2010, was finally heard by the Copyright Board in January of 2016. For all practical purposes, it was a default proceeding. The Copyright Board “ordinarily” and, indeed, often takes two years or more to render decisions – a delay that is unusual by any measure. So, a decision in 2017 – while certainly reasonably to be expected – cannot be assured unless the new Chairman is able to change the way the Board has worked for very many years.
- Other decisions under advisement at the Copyright Board involve retransmission and online music services, including the long outstanding ruling on whether there is now a new “making available right” and, if so, how tariffs will be affected.
On the lobbying front, we will have the
Section 92 Review. It is worth noting that there is now a different review
mechanism in place, compared with the five-year review established in 1997 – which
eventually resulted in new legislation 15 years later.
CURRENT 2012 LEGISLATION RE “REVIEW”
Review of Act
92 Five years after the day on which this section comes into force
and at the end of each subsequent period of five years, a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons
or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the
purpose of reviewing this Act.
- 1997, c. 24, s. 50;
- 2012, c. 20, s. 58.
The effective “coming into
force” day for the purpose of this review is November 7, 2012 – which means
that the review process need not officially begin until November 7, 2017.
PREVIOUS 1997
LEGISLATION RE “REVIEW”
Marginal
note: Review of Act
- 92 (1) Within five years after the coming into
force of this section,
the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a
report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any
recommendations for amendments to this Act.
- Marginal note: Reference
to parliamentary committee
(2) The report stands referred to the committee
of the House of Commons, or of both Houses of Parliament, that is designated or
established for that purpose, which shall
o (a) as soon as possible thereafter, review the
report and undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of
this Act; and
o (b) report to the House of Commons, or to both Houses of Parliament, within
one year after the laying of the report of the Minister or any further
time that the House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, may authorize.
- 1997, c. 24, s. 50.
(highlight added)
The main difference now is that the review
process will, at least officially, be driven by Parliament rather than the Minister
and officials. To what extent Ministers Bains and Joly wish to get involved at
various stages here remains unknown. Will the model of the “Fresh
Start” bankruptcy law process be followed? In that case, the legislation was such that “The Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act
require that the Minister of Industry report to Parliament on the provisions
and operation of both Acts in 2014”. That seems more like the old 1997
mechanism and less like the current mechanism. If recent events are any harbinger, the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce
Committee may be ready, willing and able to lead the way, or at least play a
major role. Hopefully, a process that provides a useful and sustainable synergy
between expert bureaucrats, Ministers, elected MPs, and a hopefully less
partisan and more engaged Senate where long term expertise can develop will
emerge from all of this.
That said, it quite possible
that Ministers Bains and Joly may play a role in making suggestions to the
House and Senate regarding the direction that the review might take. Since
there is little doubt that the Ministers and their officials will be heavily
lobbied by the usual suspects, it would be logical for the Ministers to open up
the process by inviting submissions and, perhaps, holding public fora either online
or in person or both, as has been done in the past. Nothing has been announced
to date about how this process will unfold. We may not know more for some time
– perhaps not even before the summer.
There are some wild cards
that could come unexpectedly. The obvious one is that of NAFTA, where copyright
could be forced onto the table. No doubt, the American content industry, through
its Canadian surrogates, will push for the life + 70 windfall that they managed
to get in the now moribund if not dead TPP.
The following is where we can expect the
main lobbying in the next weeks and months to be focused:
The copyright content owner and
collective “maximalists”, who will likely be led by the music, publishing and
copyright collective sectors, will be seeking such things as:
- The roll back of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rulings on fair dealing, namely CCH v LSUC, SOCAN v. Bell and Province of Alberta v. Access Copyright
- To repeal the explicit inclusion of “education” in s. 29 in the 2012 legislation, not that it has made any great difference given that the key SCC fair dealing rulings were all based on the previous law
- To impose some version of an “iPod tax” on memory and devices or even the “cloud”, or perhaps a “linking” or “snippet” or other form of “tax” on search engines and news aggregators, or some kind of general ISP “tax”
- To eliminate or at least raise the $5,000 cap on statutory damages for non-commercial infringement
- Term extension to life + 70 years – especially if NAFTA is re-opened as Trump keeps threatening
- Amendments to create new rights and to attempt to force the Copyright Board to eliminate what they call the “value gap”, which will become their mantra.
- Amendments to force incorrect interpretations of the Berne “three step test” and US jurisprudence on the “effect on the market” into Canadian domestic law
The “user” community, on the other hand,
may seek such things as:
- Explicit “fair dealing” provisions to legitimize the circumvention of technical protection measures (“TPMs”) in appropriate circumstances and, as Michael Geist says, “to fix the imbalance on fair dealing in the analog and digital worlds that has undermined Canadian innovation and the commitment to balance found in copyright law”
- Elimination of criminal offences in relation to circumvention in the absence of commercial scale activity
- Regulations to prohibit the use of the “notice and notice” mechanism to troll for settlement demands
- Provisions to prohibit the use of “reverse class actions” for copyright infringement
- Elimination of crown copyright in laws, statutory instruments and in any material incorporated by reference into the law.
- Explicit confirmation that copyright users’ fair dealing rights cannot be waived by means of contracts or otherwise.
Copyright law has, historically, not
been a particularly “partisan” issue in the political sense. However, the Democrats
in the USA and the Liberals in Canada have overall been more sympathetic to
copyright content owners than Republicans and Conservatives respectively. The
current Liberal government would do well to remember, however, that the once
promising career of Sarmite Bulte, former Liberal Member of Parliament and once potential
Minister of Canadian Heritage, came to quick end in 2006 in no small part as
the result of revelations about her controversial relationship generally and a notorious “fundraiser” in
particular involving prominent copyright industry leaders, including the still very
active Graham Henderson.
Virtually
all stakeholders that are affected by Copyright Board decisions are eager to
see reform at the Copyright Board. I have long suggested that much, if not most, of what is needed could
be done quickly by means of regulations. However, legislation may be required
for more profound and long-term change.
There is general agreement that the current delays of typically four
years or more to get to a hearing and a further delay of two years or more to
render a decision that is inevitably retroactive by six years or more are
inexplicable, unacceptable and unsustainable.
The Senate BANC Committee has taken the initiative on this front and its
report of November 30, 2016
may signal in some ways how the Section 92 process will unfold.
HPK
