First, the Pirate Bay case revolved primarily around the liability of its co-founders for authorizing others to infringe copyright (the co-founders were not accused of storing, uploading, or downloading infringing files themselves).  Canada already has copyright laws that address authorizing infringement.  In the landmark CCH case, the Court ruled that:

“Authorize” means to “sanction, approve and countenance”.  Countenance in the context of authorizing copyright infringement must be understood in its strongest dictionary meaning, namely, “[g]ive approval to; sanction, permit; favour, encourage." Authorization is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each particular case and can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, including a sufficient degree of indifference. owever, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright.  Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement.
 
In other words, the court says that there is presumption of legality, but that can be rebutted.  In a case like the Pirate Bay, it is certainly possible that the presumption could be rebutted and liability accrue for authorization.  Indeed, the settlement of the Quebec Torrent case (the site shut down in the face of a lawsuit) shows that torrent sites that knowingly permit, sanction or approve infringement may face liability themselves.  While IsoHunt has sued CRIA arguing that it is operating lawfully, that is not a statement of the law -  only a court claim.

Second, Canadian copyright law has criminal remedies much like those found in Sweden.  Section 42 of the Act provides for the possibility of a fine of up to a million dollars or up to five years in jail.  Moreover, the civil remedies provide for potential damages into the millions.  The Pirate Bay decision does not show that we need to strengthen criminal copyright laws since our laws already contain criminal provisions.

So, Canada already has laws to address the Pirate Bay and penalties that are similar to what is found in Sweden.  This brings me to the third point.  C-61 did not address issues like torrent search sites.  Instead, the bill provided anti-circumvention protection (legal protection for digital locks) that targeted consumers who actually buy digital products and created a host of restrictions in the process.  CRIA can argue that C-61 is the right approach, but it can't legitimately argue that C-61 is needed to deal with a Canadian version of Pirate Bay.

Update: As expected, CRIA argues that the Pirate Bay case shows that the Canadian government needs to engage in copyright reform.  Yet Barry Sookman, a CRIA lawyer and registered lobbyist, rightly acknowledges that the Pirate Bay case could be replicated in Canada, noting that "there hasn't been a criminal prosecution here in Canada but Canadian copyright law has criminal offences as well. If you look at this case they were found liable for aiding and abetting massive copyright infringement. The Canadian (Copyright Act) also makes that a (criminal) offence."

Comments (56)

Subscribe to this comment's feed