<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] Canadian Supreme Court Issues ISP & Net Music Decision





Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Geist <mgeist@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 30, 2004 12:04:07 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Canadian Supreme Court Issues ISP & Net Music Decision

Dave,

The Canadian Supreme Court issued the long-awaited Tariff 22 decision this morning.  The court allowed the appeal, overturning a Federal Court decision to impose liability on ISPs for caching of content.  The case also has a key jurisdictional element as the court ruled that there may be liability under Canadian copyright law at both the country where the music was transmitted as well as where it was received and has further implications for file sharing lawsuits.

The bottom line -- the ISPs are big winners as they have had their position as an intermediary strongly affirmed by the court.  When combined with another Supreme Court decision from earlier this year (CCH), the Canadian Supreme Court has made it very clear that ISPs should not be held responsible for copyright holders claims of infringement where they act as conduits for the transmission of data.

There are three other key elements to the case.  First, the court addresses the issue of Internet jurisdiction and rightly concludes that Canadian law may extend outside the country in certain circumstances.  Second, it raises the prospect for a notice and takedown system, suggesting that the government should consider establishing rules around this issue.  Third, one judge dives into the peer-to-peer file sharing case, expressing significant concern over the prospect for monitoring end users downloading habits and cautioning that copyright law should be interpreted with full respect for privacy rights.

As you may know, the case literally dates back to 1995 when SOCAN, a leading Canadian music collective, applied for a new tariff for downloading online music.  After four years of hearings and waiting, the Copyright Board of Canada issued a decision in 1999 that largely absolved ISPs from collecting such a tariff.  The case was appealed to the Federal Court of Canada where the court ruled that ISPs could face liability for the caching of content on their servers since such activity was not strictly necessary to deliver content and thus fell outside of the conduit exemption in the Copyright Act.  The Canadian Supreme Court heard the appeal last December.  The decision is online at
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc045.wpd.html

The key points of the decision are as follows:

1.      The court overturned the Federal Court on the caching issue.  The court again turned to its emphasis on balance in copyright in noting that the exemption for intermediaries is not a loophole but rather a critical part of the balance.  The court concludes that:

"As long as its role in respect of any given transmission is limited to providing the means necessary to allow data initiated by other persons to be transmitted over the Internet, and as long as the ancillary services it provides fall short of involving the act of communicating the work or authorizing its communication, it should be allowed to claim the exemption."

It adds that ISPs fall into the conduit category given their lack of knowledge of the content and impracticality of monitoring Internet activity.

2.      The court again addresses the issue of what it means to authorize copyright infringement.  Just as it did several months ago in a case involving photocopiers, the court ruled that:

"when massive amounts of non-copyrighted material are accessible to the end user, it is not possible to impute to the Internet Service Provider, based solely on the provision of Internet facilities, an authority to download copyrighted material as opposed to non-copyrighted material."

The court does, however, raise the specter of a notice and takedown system in Canada as it notes that failing to take action with knowledge of infringing content might in some circumstances lead to a finding of authorization.  Given the challenges with what constitutes effective notice, the court calls on the government to adopt a notice and takedown system.

3.      The court addresses the jurisdictional reach of Canadian copyright law.  It adopts a broad approach, finding that a communication occurs not just when it originates in Canada.  Rather, it might originate anywhere depending on an analysis of connecting factors to Canada.  Those connecting factors include the situs of the content provider, the host server, the intermediaries and the end user.

4.      A concurring judgment from Justice LeBel raises an important issue for the peer-to-peer file sharing lawsuits.  The judge argues that the Court should interpret the Copyright Act in a manner that ) "respects end users' privacy interests, and should eschew an interpretation that would encourage the monitoring or collection of personal data gleaned from Internet-related activity within the home."  Moreover, he was very troubled by any test that might encourage monitoring of Internet user activity, noting that "the privacy interests of individuals will be directly implicated where owners of copyrighted works or their collective societies attempt to retrieve data from Internet Service Providers about an end user's downloading of copyrighted works."

Incidentally, the case now heads back to the Copyright Board for "phase two" of the proceedings which will be used to determine the amount of the tariff (phase one addressed the legal issues associated with who is subject to the tariff).

If you're looking for more information, I've actually written about the case at each stage.  For more on the 1999 Copyright Board decision, see <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/ 19991118/TWGEIS>

For more on the 2002 Federal court decision see
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/ 20020516/TWGEIS>

Best,

MG

--

**********************************************************************
 Professor Michael A. Geist
 Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law
 University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
 Technology Counsel, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
 57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
 Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
 mgeist@xxxxxxxxx              http://www.michaelgeist.ca

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/