Post Tagged with: "cch"

Bill C-11 Extremism Continues: The Attack on Fair Dealing

The extremist demands on Bill C-11 are not limited to the music industry’s massive overhaul of Canadian copyright reform that would require Internet providers to block access to foreign sites, take down content without court oversight, and disclose subscriber information without a warrant. Over the past two days, several groups have also taken aim at fair dealing. While those groups start by focusing on the extension of fair dealing in Bill C-11 to include parody, satire, and education, under questioning it becomes clear that they their real target is the full fair dealing provision and the desire to undo the Supreme Court of Canada’s CCH decision.

On Monday, the Writers’ Union of Canada told the committee:

March 7, 2012 — 3 comments — News

Access Copyright to the Supreme Court: No Need for Greater Fair Dealing Certainty

With Bill C-32 heading for second reading tomorrow, the inclusion of education as a fair dealing category looms as one of the big issues. Groups such as Access Copyright oppose the reform and argue that legislative guidance on the scope of fair dealing is needed. It turns out, however, that Access Copyright is prepared to argue precisely the opposite position when it suits. This past summer, the copyright collective won a major fair dealing case at the Federal Court of Appeal, leading some education groups to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Access Copyright is opposed to the leave application and its memorandum to the court says the current six part fair dealing test is good enough. In particular, it argues:

November 1, 2010 — 18 comments — News

Federal Court Ruling Shows Copyright Fair Dealing Fears Greatly Exaggerated

Appeared in the Hill Times on August 2, 2010 as Federal Court Ruling Shows Copyright Fair Dealing Fears Greatly Exaggerated The introduction of long-awaited copyright reform legislation has generated considerable discussion among Canadians about whether the latest bill strikes the right balance. While concern over Bill C-32’s digital lock rules […]

August 2, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

McKennitt Op-Ed: “Pirates are Killing Musicians, Composers, Lyricists, Even Popcorn Vendors”

Loreena McKennitt published an op-ed supporting copyright reform in the Winnipeg Free Press over the weekend that focuses on the harm of infringement and the need for C-32. The piece raises at least a couple of issues. First, there is the claim that "even popcorn sellers are struggling to stay alive" in light the current state of Canadian copyright law. This claim arises from some declining interest in big music tours, which is taken as evidence that performances are not a viable alternative for many musicians. What copyright reform has to do with concert venues, performers or popcorn sellers is anyone's guess – promoters of struggling music tours say it has everything to do with a tough economy, competition for the entertainment dollar, and high ticket prices rather than music downloads or IP enforcement. Copyright reform won't change the financial dynamics of the touring industry, which will presumably still leave those same popcorn vendors struggling to stay alive.

If the McKennitt piece was limited to the popcorn claim, it would merely join previous attempts to link copyright with the success of the corn industry (see Rick Cotton of NBC Universal). However, McKennitt also challenges the very notion of user rights in copyright, calling them "so-called user rights" which she says is used by activists and academics as "crafted language."

July 6, 2010 — 99 comments — News

The Access Copyright – Staples Suit: The Statement of Claim

In my first post on the Access Copyright suit against Staples/The Business Depot, I noted that I had not seen the statement of claim and therefore could not comment fully on the case. I have now seen the claim and remain puzzled that Access Copyright is bringing this lawsuit. From a legal perspective, it looks like an almost sure loser – the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on many of these same issues only three years ago and sided strongly against the publishers (who in this case are effectively represented by Access Copyright).

Access Copyright claims that there is both direct and authorized copyright infringement and that it needs both injunctive relief (it would like to shut down Staples/The Business Depot photocopying business) and punitive damages to account for the fact that "the actions of Business Depot have been high-handed, reckless and in blatant disregard of the copyright interests of Access Copyright." So how, according to Access Copyright, has Staples/The Business Depot infringed copyright?

November 18, 2007 — 9 comments — News