Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Copyright Board: Supreme Court Copyright Decision is "Clear and Leaves No Room for Interpretations"

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Copyright Board: Supreme Court Copyright Decision is "Clear and Leaves No Room for Interpretations"

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday September 20, 2012
The Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that the copies that were at issue before the Supreme Court of Canada (roughly 7% of copies) constitute fair dealing and do not require compensation. The Board's decision does not come as a surprise given the Supreme Court's strong endorsement of fair dealing and clear signal that it viewed an earlier Board decision as unreasonable. Access Copyright argued that the Court did not rule the copies at issue were fair dealing, but the Board found that the Court's message was clear:

The decision of the Supreme Court is clear and leaves no room for interpretations: based on the record before the Board and the findings of fact of the Supreme Court, Category 4 copies constitute fair dealing for an allowable purpose and as such, are non-compensable. The FTE rate must be reduced accordingly.

While Access Copyright now claims that the Supreme Court decision "has no impact on the requirement that royalties continue to be paid on the hundreds of millions of pages of student texts that are copied for use in K-12 classrooms every year", the reality is that royalties or permissions are already obtained for 88% of copies without Access Copyright. As for the remaining small percentage of copies, the Court's analysis of fair dealing applies to all copies, not just those at issue and the need for an Access Copyright licence is clearly in doubt. In fact, as Barry Sookman argued before the court in seeking leave to intervene on behalf of publishers: "the precedent established in this case will extend to activities well beyond the K-12 educational setting." I discuss the Court's fair dealing analysis here and the implications for Access Copyright here.
Comments (7)add comment

Crockett said:

Grab your popcorn ...
It is interesting reading these two blogs ... http://arielkatz.ca/?p=1983 & http://johndegen.blogspot.ca/2...-with.html

As you peruse the prose you may come away with a picture of a bitter, recently divorced couple who blames the other for all the ills. Hyperbole such as 'terrorize' or the cute but disingenuously shortened 'freecult' does little to dispel this.

One will hold up this lawyers interpretation against another's or in the case of Sookman, himself. It's all a game of perception. The reality though is the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that has decreased the rights of copyright holders and increased the rights of users. The degree, and scope, that this ruling will apply is the battle for the hearts and minds in the musings above.
September 20, 2012

Kim said:

@Crockett
I'm sure you meant to say the Supreme Court *clarified* the rights of users and holders. Anything more (decreasing or increasing rights) would be for the legislators, no?
September 20, 2012

Crockett said:

@Kim "Anything more (decreasing or increasing rights) would be for the legislators, no?"

Or in the case of the Trans Pacific Partnership; 9 other country's legislators ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/26/canada-trans-pacific-partnership-internet-copyright_n_1628687.html
September 20, 2012

Byte said:

I daresay even more...
...it's not just that the users have the right to make copies under those circumstances, it's moreover that they can do so without owing any compensation. The latter is of course just as important in these cases.
September 21, 2012

Jackie Champion said:

...
Hey there! Keep it up! Thank you so much for sharing some of your ideas about this particular issue. It is so fulfilling to have an additional knowledge about criminal defense from you. You have such an interesting and very informative page. I'll be looking forward to be visiting your site again and for your other posts as well.
A criminal defense lawyer is a lawyer specializing in the defense of individuals and companies charged with criminal conduct. Criminal defense lawyers can be permanently employed by the various jurisdictions with criminal courts. Such lawyers are often called public defenders. For a much more extensive discussion of criminal defense, see public defender. The terminology is imprecise because each jurisdiction may have different practices with various levels of input from state and federal law or consent decrees. Other jurisdictions use a rotating system of appointments with judges appointing a private practice attorney or firm for each case.
As a defendant, you have the following rights:
→Right to remain silent
→Right to an attorney
→Right to a jury trial
→Right to confront awitness
→Right against self-incrimination
→Right to produce evidence

Criminal Lawyers Patchogue, NY
September 21, 2012

@Byte said:

I'll see that, and raise you...
Fighting copying is as immoral as raising a
child in the dark.

Prometheus is one of my personal heroes.
September 21, 2012

Grace said:

This is really quite silly.
You'd think we would have better things to do with our time then focus on copyright laws. People are starving to death and struggling with their health but let's just focus on copyright laws.

grace
April 05, 2013

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: