For much of the past two decades, copyright groups have steadfastly sought to deny what the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly endorsed, namely that the purpose of Canadian copyright law is to serve the public interest by balancing users’ and authors’ rights. Last week provided the latest episode in the ongoing series as the Court delivered yet another strong affirmation on the importance of copyright balance and the role of technological neutrality, confirming that “[c]opyright law does not exist solely for the benefit of authors.” The decision – SOCAN v. Entertainment Software Association – can read on at least four levels: (1) as a repudiation of SOCAN’s effort to establish a new, additional royalty for the “making available” of music; (2) as a confirmation of the importance of technological neutrality and copyright balance; (3) as an example of the flexibility associated with implementing the WIPO Internet treaties, and (4) as the undeniable entrenchment of Canadian copyright jurisprudence that now features deeply layered precedents on users’ rights.
Archive for July 20th, 2022
Episode 138: John Lawford on the Legal, Regulatory and Policy Responses to the Rogers Outage
August 8, 2022
Episode 135: Co-Chair Emily Laidlaw on the Work of the Government's Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety
July 18, 2022
July 11, 2022
Search Results placeholder
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 138: John Lawford on the Legal, Regulatory and Policy Responses to the Rogers Outage
- The Staffieri or Scott Quiz: Can You Tell the Difference Between the Rogers CEO and the CRTC Chair?
- The CRTC Shrugged: A Special Law Bytes Podcast on the Industry Committee Hearing Into the Rogers Outage
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 136: Jeremy de Beer on SOCAN v. ESA, the Supreme Court’s Latest Endorsement of Copyright Balance and Technological Neutrality
- Supreme Court of Canada on Copyright: “Copyright Law Does Not Exist Solely for the Benefit of Authors”