Source: http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/tag/copyright
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:44:23+00:00

Document:
These boxes have several uses for consumers, some of which are perfectly legal and some which skirt around the fringes of copyright law. This is not the first time a new technology has been alleged to violate copyright law, nor will it be the last.
In her view, the allegations in this particular instance were strong enough to support a prima facie case of copyright infringement and the injunction order. The matter will proceed to trial at a later date to resolve the various copyright and related issues.
pre-loaded set-top boxes represent an existential threat to [their] line of business as piracy is one of the top causes for declining subscriptions for television services in Canada and leads to annual decreases in revenue.
2.4(1) For the purposes of communication to the public by telecommunication, […] (b) a person whose only act in respect of the communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public consists of providing the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate the work or other subject-matter does not communicate that work or other subject-matter to the public.
The Court found that this statutory defence was not available to the Defendants. They had, said the Court, deliberately encouraged consumers to use the set-top boxes to circumvent the broadcasters’ subscription-based services. They had promoted their set-top boxes to consumers as a means to cancel their cable subscriptions (using slogans such as “Original Cable Killer”), and had also offered tutorials on how to use the pre-loaded apps to obtain “free” programming. The Court said that these activities “went above and beyond” selling a simple piece of hardware, and instead related to the content of the copyright-protected programming. This constituted prima facie infringement.
The Court also agreed with the broadcasters that inducing and authorizing consumers to infringe copyright was an additional serious issue to be tried.
The Court’s order not only enjoins the five named retailers from continuing to configure, market and sell the pre-loaded set-top boxes; it allows the broadcasters to serve the order on other retailers who are engaged in the same activities.
*Thanks to Smart & Biggar for making the link to the decision available online.
The following is a timeline of broadcast reproduction copyright developments, leading to yesterday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision in CBC v. SODRAC.
1980’s: SODRAC, a copyright collective society managing (largely French-language) music reproduction rights, licences the reproduction of musical works in its repertoire to television producers.
1990: Bishop v. Stevens  2 S.C.R. 467 – The Supreme Court determines that “ephemeral” copies made by a TV broadcaster engage the reproduction right under the Copyright Act. Making copies of musical works to facilitate a broadcast, and actually broadcasting musical works, engage two different rights. Each of those rights may be licensed and paid for separately. Following this decision, SODRAC begins to distinguish between synchronization licences and copies made for other purposes.
1992: CBC and SODRAC negotiate a licence agreement for all copies made by CBC – synchronization and any other copies – for radio and TV. According to SODRAC, this is the first general reproduction rights agreement with a radio and television broadcaster in North America.
1990’s: CBC and other broadcasters begin to make greater use of digital systems to prepare programming for broadcast, gradually replacing older analog systems.
November 2012: Copyright Board SODRAC-CBC Arbitration Decision – The Board confirms that broadcast-incidental copies are reproductions under the Act, and do not benefit from a statutory exception. The Board finds that there are “clear benefits [to CBC] from copy-dependant technologies”, and SODRAC is entitled to remuneration that reflects those benefits.
November 2012: The Copyright Modernization Act – a broad set of amendments intended to better reflect copyright in the context of modern technologies – enter into force. Among other things, the “ephemeral exception” for broadcast copies is amended and expanded in part.
December 2012: Entertainment Software Association v. SOCAN  2 S.C.R. 231 – In one of the 2012 “pentalogy” of copyright cases, the Supreme Court determines that the Copyright Board was incorrect to apply a separate “communication” tariff – over and above the reproduction right payment – to downloads of musical works for video games. The principle of technological neutrality requires that the Copyright Act apply equally between traditional and more technologically advanced media.
January 2013: Copyright Board Interim SODRAC-CBC Arbitration Decision – The Board extends the 2008-2012 licence on an interim basis pending its final determination of terms to 2016. The Board rejects CBC’s argument that the Copyright Modernization Act amendments provide a statutory exception for its broadcast-incidental copies.
March 2014: CBC v. SODRAC Federal Court of Appeal,  1 F.C.R. 509. The Federal Court of Appeal rejects the broadcasters’ argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in ESA has overtaken Bishop v. Stevens. Broadcast copies are reproductions under the Act. The Court states, however, that it is “difficult to know how one is to approach technological neutrality post-ESA”, and finds that Bishop v. Stevens determines the outcome unless Bishop is “overturned or disavowed by the Supreme Court”.
November 2015: CBC v. SODRAC Supreme Court 2015 SCC 57. In a 7-2 split decision, Justice Rothstein, for a majority of the Supreme Court, confirms that broadcast-incidental (or “ephemeral”) copies that facilitate broadcasting are reproductions under the Copyright Act. The bulk of the decision then focuses on valuation of the reproduction right. The majority finds that the Board failed to take the principles of technological neutrality and balance into consideration when setting the fees for the copies.
The majority expressly responds to the Court of Appeal’s call for guidance on how to approach technological neutrality. Pursuant to ESA, if there is no practical difference in the value to a user as between its old and new technologies, then there should be no difference in valuing the right. The Copyright Board should compare the value derived by the user from the use of the reproduction, considering older and newer technologies. In the present case, if CBC derives greater value from using broadcast-incidental copies in digital technology than it did with its old analog technology, then the copright owner has become entitled to greater royalties for the copies.
The majority recalls that in Théberge, the Court established that copyright law maintains a balance between the rights of copyright owners and users, and that it would be as inefficient to overcompensate artists as it would be self-defeating to undercompensate them. Relevant factors in valuation include the user’s risk and investment in using new technologies, and how making reproductions contributes to value to the user. In this case, the user’s risk and investment were high, and the value of the reproductions to the user were low. The matter of valuation is sent back to the Copyright Board for reconsideration.
Justice Abella writes a vigorous dissent, agreed to in part by Justice Karakatsanis. The dissent takes issue with the majority’s approach to the principle of technological neutrality, which effectively ties copyright owner compensation to users’ actions that are irrelevant to the rights, and focuses on the value that new technologies create for the user. The dissent distinguishes “media neutrality” (focused on the medium of expression) from “functional equivalence” (focused on what the technology actually does), stating that functionally, broadcast-incidental copies are simply part of the core activity of broadcasting. Just as the Court confirmed in ESA, “technological neutrality operates to prevent imposing additional, gratuitous fees on the user simply for the use of more efficient technologies” […] “SODRAC is not entitled to be compensated for how efficiently CBC uses technology to achieve its broadcast”. The Board’s decision to impose fees for broadcast-incidental copies is unreasonable.
Economic Action Plan 2015 proposes to amend the Copyright Act so that the term of protection of performances and sound recordings is extended from 50 years to 70 years following the date of the release of the sound recordings.
The mid-1960s were an exciting time in Canadian music, producing many iconic Canadian performers and recordings. While songwriters enjoy the benefits flowing from their copyright throughout their lives, some performers are starting to lose copyright protection for their early recordings and performances because copyright protection for song recordings and performances following the first release of the sound recording is currently provided for only 50 years.
Economic Action Plan 2015 proposes to amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection of sound recordings and performances from 50 to 70 years following the first release of the sound recording. This will ensure that performers and record labels are fairly compensated for the use of their music for an additional 20 years.
The copyright proposal is surprising not only for its inclusion in a budget document, but also for its appearance so soon after the government heralded its delivery of the Copyright Modernization Act. The 2012 Act was intended to balance and modernize Canada’s entire copyright regime, and was enacted following lengthy and detailed consultations with representatives of all affected stakeholders.
A critical element of the Copyright Modernization Act is the requirement that Parliament revisit the Copyright Act every five years. This will serve as a reminder to current and future Parliaments and governments of the important role that modern and updated copyright laws play in our economy.
Indeed, section 92 of the Copyright Act calls for a statutory review of the Act every five years by a committee of the Senate, House of Commons, or both. Section 92 does not preclude amendments between those statutory reviews. However, the government and stakeholders alike have all recognized that copyright calls for balance. Achieving that balance calls for careful review and input from all stakeholders.
A further 20 years of protection and fees for sound recordings has been welcomed by the music industry in Canada. But will this proposed budgetary measure have the effect of making a real difference for the Canadian economy? And on the copyright side, will it “strike the right balance between the needs of creators and users”?
The Government of Canada has promised to balance the budget. As the copyright term extension proposal moves forward, we look forward to further discussion on balanced copyright.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.