DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of Canada Factum Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of Canada Factum Of S.C.C. File No. 34210 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Federal Court ofAppeal) BETWEEN: RE:SOUND Appellant (Applicant) - and- MOTION PICTURE THEATRE ASSOCIATIONS OF CANADA, ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC., SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC., BELL EXPRESSVU LLP, COGECO CABLE INC., EASTLINK, QUEBECOR MEDIA, TELUS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, INC., CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Respondents (Respondents) FACTUM OF APPELLANT, RE:SOUND OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP P.O. Box 50 340 Albert Street, Suite 1900 1 First Canadian Place Ottawa, Ontario KIR 7Y6 Toronto, Ontario M5X IB8 Mahmud Jamal Patricia J. Wilson Glen Bloom Marcus Klee Tel: (613) 787-1009 Jason MacLean Fax: (613) 235-2867 Tel: (416) 862-6764 Fax: (416) 862-6666 Counsel for Re:Sound Ottawa Agent for Re:Sound TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND TO: HAYES ELAW LLP FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP Yonge Eglinton Centre Suite 1300 2300 Yonge Street 55 Metcalfe Street Box 2397, Suite 2102 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6L5 Toronto, Ontario M4P lE4 Mark Hayes Gerald Kerr-Wilson Tel: (416) 966-3529 Tel.: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (416) 966-3529 Fax: (613) 230-6423 Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, Canadian Association of Canadian Association ofBroadcasters Broadcasters AND TO: MCMILLAN LLP MCMILLAN LLP Brookfield Place 50 O'Connor Street, Suite 300 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6L2 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T3 David W. Kent Marie-France Major Tel: (416) 865-7143 Tel: (613) 232-7171 Fax: (416) 865-7048 Fax: (613) 231-3191 Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, Motion Picture Theatre Associations Motion Picture Theatre Associations of ofCanada Canada AND TO: FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP Suite 1300 55 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6L5 Gerald Kerr-Wilson Tel.: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (613) 230-6423 Counsel for the Respondents, Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Bell ExpressVu LLP, Cogeco Cable Inc., Eastlink, Quebecor Media, and Telus Communications Company AND TO: FASKEN MARTINEAU FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP DUMOULIN LLP Suite 1300 The Stock Exchange Tower 55 Metcalfe Street P.O. Box 22, Suite 3700 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6L5 800 Victoria Square Montreal, Quebec H4Z 1E9 Marek Nitoslawski Gerald Kerr-Wilson Tel: (514) 397-4335 Tel.: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (514) 397-7600 Fax: (613) 230-6423 Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian Broadcasting Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I- BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 A. OVERVIEW 1 B. BACKGROUND FACTS 4 (a) Re:Sound 4 (b) Re:Sound's Proposed Tariffs 6 C. DECISIONS BELOW 7 (a) Copyright Board ofCanada 7 (b) Federal Court ofAppeal (Trudel JA, Noel and Mainville JJ.A. concurring) 8 PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 9 PART III - ARGUMENT 9 A. Recording Artists And Record Companies Are Entitled To Equitable Remuneration Under Section 19 OfThe Copyright Act When Their Music Is Played In Movies And On TV, Just As They Are Remunerated When Their Music Is Played On The Radio 9 1. The Standard ofAppellate Review is Correctness 9 2. The Context ofthis Appeal 9 3. The Modem Principle ofStatutory Interpretation 10 4. The Purpose of Section 19 ofthe Copyright Act 11 (a) Section 19 recognizes the nature and importance ofequitable remuneration for performers and makers ofsound recordings 11 (b) Section 19 implements a regime oflayered reproduction and performance rights .... 14 (c) Section 19 should be interpreted in a technologically neutral way that allows the Act to continue to apply to new media technology 16 (d) Section 19 achieves equality with the rights ofauthors and composers 18 (e) Section 19 complies with Canada's obligations under the Rome Convention 20 (f) Conclusion with respect to the purposive interpretation ofs. 19 21 -11- 5. The Purpose of Section 2 ofthe Copyright Act 21 (a) To create a new, consolidated copyright in movies 21 (b) Reconciling the English and French meaning of"soundtrack" 25 6. The Proper, Purposive and Harmonious Interpretation ofss. 19 and 2 ofthe Copyright Act 26 7. Anomalies and Absurdities Flowing From the Decisions Below 26 (a) Technologically regressive 27 (b) Fails to interpret the Copyright Act as a whole 27 (c) Prioritizes the English definition ofsoundtrack, and fails to reconcile the English and French meanings 28 (d) Throws Canada out ofstep with international peers 28 (e) Breaches the Rome Convention 29 (t) Compromises Canadian recording artists' and record companies' international reciprocal equitable remuneration rights 31 (g) Confuses and confIates distinct layered rights 32 (h) Entrenches unwarranted inequality between the rights ofperformers/makers and authors/composers 35 (i) Rental rights are not in issue 34 8. Conclusion 36 PART IV -SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS 38 PART V- ORDER SOUGHT 38 PART VI - LIST OF AUTHORITIES PART VII - RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS PART I- BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS A. OVERVIEW 1. This case is about basic fairness under the Copyright Act.! It is about providing fair compensation or "equitable remuneration" under s. 19 of the Copyright Act to recording artists and record companies across Canada and internationally when their music is played in movies and on TV, just as they are currently paid when their music is played on the radio. The financial stakes are significant: about $45 million annually - a 300% increase from current levels - in lost equitable remuneration royalties. The cultural stakes, however, are much greater: at issue is the ability of Canadian cultural industries to remain competitive internationally and for Canadian musical creativity to survive and flourish. 2. Section 19 ofthe Copyright Act provides that recording artists and record companies, as "performers" and "makers", respectively, are entitled to "equitable remuneration" for the public performance oftheir sound recordings. The Federal Court of Appeal and Copyright Board held that the definition of "sound recording" in s. 2 of the Copyright Act precludes equitable remuneration under s. 19 for pre-recorded music forming part of the soundtrack of a "cinematographic work", such as a movie or TV program soundtrack. This means that recording artists and record companies are paid under s. 19 when their music is played on the radio, but are not paid when their music is played in movies and on TV - even if they contribute significantly to the success ofthose audiovisual works, and even though authors and composers are paid when the same music is played in the same movies and TV programs. 3. To illustrate, under the approach ofthe decisions below, Ms Celine Dion is paid under s. 19 ofthe Copyright Act when "My Heart Will Go On" is played on the radio, but she is not paid Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. -2- under s. 19 when the same song is played in the movie Titanic, even though her performance was a critical factor in the movie's success. By contrast, the song's author, Mr. James Homer, is paid both when the song is played on the radio and in the movie. The Federal Court of Appeal and the Copyright Board found that Parliament intended to shut out performers like Ms Dion from sharing in a movie's success. 4. Parliament intended no such thing. The purpose ofs. 19 is just the opposite: the provision provides fair compensation to recording artists and record companies when their music is publicly performed or broadcast, whether in movies, on TV, on the radio, or in any other medium. Section 19 provides as follows: Right to remuneration Droit aremuneration 19. (I) Where a sound recording has been 19.(1) Sous reserve de l'article 20, I'artiste­ published, the performer and maker are entitled, interprete et Ie producteur ont chacun droit it une subject to section 20, to be paid equitable remuneration equitable pour I'execution en public remuneration for its performance in public or its ou la communication au public par communication to the public by tele­ telecommunication - a ['exclusion de toute communication, exceptfor any retransmission. retransmission - de l'enregistrement sonore publie. [Emphasis added] [Emphasis added] 5. The only exclusion to the broad right of equitable remuneration under s. 19 is for retransmissions: no particular entity or medium - such as movies, TV, or radio - is excluded. 6. Parliament did not intend this broad right to equitable remuneration to be cut-down by the definition of"sound recording" in s. 2 ofthe Copyright Act, which provides as follows: "sound recording" « enregistrement sonore » « enregistrement sonore » "sound recording" "sound recording" means a recording, fixed in any « enregistrement sonore » Enregistrement constitue material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not de sons provenant ou non de I'execution d'une of a performance of a work, but excludes any oeuvre et fixes sur un support materiel quelconque; soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it est exclue de 1a presente definition la bande sonore accompanies the cinematographic work[.] d'une oeuvre cinematographique lorsqu'elle accompagne celle-ci. - 3 - 7. The purpose of the definition of "sound recording" is not to preclude equitable remuneration for sound recordings broadcast in movies, TV programs, and other audiovisual works. Rather, its purpose is to create a new copyright in movies and other "cinematographic works," one that consolidates their audio and visual elements to ensure that movies do not attract copyright protection as hoth a movie and a sound recording. There is absolutely no evidence that Parliament intended s. 2 to take away the broad right to equitable remuneration granted by s. 19. 8. The High Court of Australia has interpreted definitions of a "sound recording" in the U.K. Copyright Act 1956 and the Australian Copyright Act 1968 that are materially identical to the definition in s. 2 ofthe Act. The High Court held that the purpose ofthese provisions was to prevent the maker of a movie from acquiring a separate copyright, as a sound recording, in the soundtrack of the movie (i.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canadian Retransmission Collective
    The Honourable Navdeep Bains, P.C., M.P. Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 The Honourable Mélanie Joly Minister of Canadian Heritage House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Copyright Board of Canada 56 Sparks St., Suite 800 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 Re: A Consultation on Options for Reform to the Copyright Board of Canada Attention: [email protected] A. INTRODUCTION Canadian Retransmission Collective (CRC) is pleased to respond to the Government of Canada’s request for submissions of August 9, 2017 to all Copyright Board stakeholders, requesting commentary on the matters raised in the Consultation on Options for Reform to the Copyright Board of Canada (the “Discussion Paper”). CRC is a copyright collective representing thousands of program rights holders. Its affiliates include independent Canadian program producers, the National Film Board of Canada, producers of programs shown on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and Réseau France Outremer (RFO), educational TV producers in Canada (except Télé-Québec), all foreign producers and broadcasters outside North America, and producers of music videos used in Canadian programs. CRC’s mandate is to ensure that distant signal royalties reflect an equitable market value and are flowed through to program rightsholders in a timely and efficient manner. Achieving these goals is essential to promoting a copyright ecosystem that encourages the creation and dissemination of new content. CRC fully supports the Government of Canada’s and the Copyright Board’s policy goals in reviewing the legislative and regulatory framework of the powers and procedures of the Board. All stakeholders – copyright owners, intermediaries, and users alike – will benefit from a more efficient Copyright Board process.
    [Show full text]
  • An Act to Amend the Copyright Act
    Bill C-32: An Act to amend the Copyright Act Publication No. 40-3-C32-E 20 July 2010 Dara Lithwick Legal and Legislative Affairs Division Parliamentary Information and Research Service Legislative Summary of Bill C-32 HTML and PDF versions of this publication are available on IntraParl (the parliamentary intranet) and on the Parliament of Canada website. In the electronic versions, a number of the endnote entries contain hyperlinks to referenced resources. Ce document est également publié en français. Library of Parliament Legislative Summaries summarize government bills currently before Parliament and provide background about them in an objective and impartial manner. They are prepared by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, which carries out research for and provides information and analysis to parliamentarians and Senate and House of Commons committees and parliamentary associations. Legislative Summaries are revised as needed to reflect amendments made to bills as they move through the legislative process. Notice: For clarity of exposition, the legislative proposals set out in the bill described in this Legislative Summary are stated as if they had already been adopted or were in force. It is important to note, however, that bills may be amended during their consideration by the House of Commons and Senate, and have no force or effect unless and until they are passed by both houses of Parliament, receive Royal Assent, and come into force. Any substantive changes in this Legislative Summary that have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print. Publication No. 40-3-C32-E Ottawa, Canada, Library of Parliament (2010) CONTENTS 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Module Ii Copyright and Related Rights
    MODULE II COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS Introduction General Part II of the TRIPS Agreement sets out the substantive standards for the protection of IP that WTO members should follow. This module outlines the provisions of Section 1 of Part II (running from Article 9 to Article 14), which sets out the protection that members must make available in the area of copyright and related rights – specifically, for literary and artistic works, performances, phonograms (or sound recordings) and broadcasts. This Section has to be read, like all other sections in Part II, together with the relevant provisions of certain pre-existing treaties in the area of international IP law that are incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement. In the case of copyright, the relevant treaty is the Berne Convention; and on related rights, there are certain references to the Rome Convention. The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and these Conventions is explained in section A3 below. As in the other areas of IP covered by the TRIPS Agreement, the provisions of Section 1 stipulate the minimum level of protection that members have to provide to nationals of other members. In other words, they determine the obligations that such members have towards each other. Given the long history of international cooperation on copyright matters, the national laws in this area are often fairly similar. However, to answer any question the reader may have on how the law applies in any practical situation, the applicable domestic law will have to be consulted. What are copyright and related rights? The term ‘copyright’ in its narrow sense usually refers to the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations Prescribing Networks (Copyright Act) (SOR/99-348)
    Regulations Prescribing Networks (Copyright Act) (SOR/99-348) REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENTi (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Description Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, received Royal Assent on April 25, 1997. Among the measures put in place by this bill are new rights for performers and sound recording makers as well as exceptions for non-profit schools, libraries, archives and museums. There are also two exceptions which take into account the need of both radio and television broadcasters to make temporary copies (i.e., "ephemeral recordings") of performances so as to facilitate programming and broadcasting operations. Without these exceptions, broadcasters would first need to obtain the permission of the copyright owner in respect of each copyrighted work captured on the ephemeral recording. The exceptions are subject to certain conditions and limitations. For example, it is a condition of both exceptions that broadcasters destroy each ephemeral recording within thirty days of its making, unless the copyright owner consents otherwise. Broadcasters must keep a record of the date(s) of both the making and destruction of each ephemeral recording, including any other information prescribed by Regulation. Further, the exceptions are not available in respect of copyrighted works for which a collective society of copyright owners licenses the making of ephemeral recordings. (Note: The text which follows refers to "programming undertakings" and "broadcasting undertakings". These terms include entities such as television and radio stations. Their specific legal definitions are, however, set out in the Copyright Act.) In particular: (a) section 30.8 of the Copyright Act allows a programming undertaking to make, for the purpose of deferred broadcasting, an ephemeral recording of a live performance which incorporates copyrighted works.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • The Development and Incorporation of International Norms in the Formation of Copyright Law
    The Development and Incorporation of International Norms in the Formation of Copyright Law GRAEME B. DINWOODIE* The means by which international norms are developed and incorporated in the formation of copyright law have changed dramatically in recent years. In this article, Professor Dinwoodie explores the nature of those changes. The classical model of international copyright law afforded countries significant latitude to implement international standards in ways tailored to their own economic and cultural priorities. The lack of an effective method of enforcing international standards consolidated that deference to national autonomy. And international treaties tended merely to codify existing commonly accepted national standards. This model has undergone changes of late, most notably (but not exclusively) in the context of the TRIPS Agreement, which subsumed the principal international copyright obligations within the WTO Dispute Settlement system. This change to the classical model is potentially significant in many ways. Most directly, failure to fulfill international copyright obligations may be met by the imposition of trade sanctions. More broadly, however, the interpretation of international copyright obligations by WTO panels may alter the degree of national autonomy afforded member states and may make international copyright law more forward looking in nature. International copyright lawmaking by activist WTO panels thus may generate costs as well as gains. Professor Dinwoodie considers these issues through an analysis of the first (and, thus far, the only) report of a WTO dispute settlement panel regarding violation of a copyright provision contained in the TRIPS Agreement. This report, handed down in June 2000, found that an exemption introduced into section 110(5) of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the WTO Analysis of 17 USC ß 110(5) Mean
    Sarah E. Henry The First International Challenge to U.S. Copyright Law: What Does the WTO Analysis of 17 U.S.C. ß 110(5) Mean to the Future of International Harmonization of Copyright Laws Under the TRIPS Agreement? 20 Penn State International Law Review 301 (2001) I. Introduction June 15, 2000 was a landmark date in the development of international copyright law. A World Trade Organization ("WTO") dispute settlement body ("Panel") published a panel report, which 2 found that Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act of 19761 as amended in 1998, was incompatible with US obligations under the Uruguay Round Multilateral Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement")3. 4 The Panel has recom- mended that the US amend 110(5) in order to conform with the TRIPS Agreement. 5 At issue was the Fairness in Music Licensing Act ("FMLA"), an amendment to Section 110(5) enacted by Congress in October, 1998.6 The same day FMLA became law on January 26, 1999, the European Community ("EC"), comprised of fifteen-member nations,7 brought a challenge under the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement procedures.8 The EC complaint, fueled initially by complaints from performers' rights organizations,9 concluded that the practical effect of the FMLA resulted in royalty losses totaling approximately Euro 28 million per annum.10 Thereafter, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland joined in the EC complaint, participating in formal discus- 1 United States Copyright Act of 1976, Act of Oct. 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIPS Agreement Implications for ASEAN Protection of Computer Technology Marie Wilson
    Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law Volume 4 | Issue 1 Article 4 1997 TRIPS Agreement Implications for ASEAN Protection of Computer Technology Marie Wilson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilson, Marie (1997) "TRIPS Agreement Implications for ASEAN Protection of Computer Technology," Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol4/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wilson: TRIPS Agreement Implications TRIPS AGREEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR ASEAN PROTECTION OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY MARIE WILSON· The new Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (the TRIPs Agreement), a result of the recent General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round, represents a major step toward providing the global trading system with more effective rules and enforcement procedures for the protection of all forms of intellectual property. The author presents a comprehensive analysis of the TRIPs Agreement requirements and of their ramifications for intellectual property protection and enforcement in the Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The paper concludes with an assessment of the future ofcomputer technology protection in the ABEAN countries. • Marie Wilson obtained her J.D. degree from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1979 and earned her LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • International Copyright from an American Perspective
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1990 International Copyright from an American Perspective Marshall A. Leaffer Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Leaffer, Marshall A., "International Copyright from an American Perspective" (1990). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 665. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/665 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. International Copyright from an American Perspective Marshall Leaffer* Introduction In our age of information the international dimension of copyright law grows in importance with each day. Satellite communications and other developing technologies permit worldwide access to copyrighted works as never before. Copyrighted works can be copied cheaply and disseminated quickly, unimpeded by time, space, or national boundary. This results in copyright owners having less and less control over their creations, particularly in light of the systematic piracy of copyrighted works which occurs in some foreign countries. As the world's largest user and producer of copy- righted works, the United States has a special interest in an orderly and responsive international regime of copyright pro- tection. The United States's recognition of this special interest is reflected in its March 1, 1989 entry into the Berne Conven- tion, the oldest and preeminent multinational copyright treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property
    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patents 93 Copyright 95 Trade-marks 96 Domain Names 97 Other Intellectual Property 98 By Alfred Macchione and Dan Glover Intellectual Property 93 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY The federal laws on patents, copyright and trade-marks provide the principal protection for intellectual property in Canada. Canada is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and has agreed to the minimum standards of protection and reciprocal treatment provided in this treaty. Patents Canada is a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Stockholm Act) and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The Patent Act provides that any new, useful and unobvious invention that falls within the statutorily defi ned categories, namely, art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (or any improvement of any of these) CANADA IS A MEMBER is patentable. Higher life forms per se are not OF THE PARIS patentable, but engineered genetic material CONVENTION FOR and cell lines containing such genetic material THE PROTECTION OF typically are patentable. Algorithms per se INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY are not patentable, but computer program (STOCKHOLM ACT) products or methods that implement a AND THE PATENT tangible solution, or produce a discernable COOPERATION TREATY. eff ect or change, generally are patentable. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL In a landmark decision rendered in October 2010, the Federal Court overturned a rejection by the Commissioner of Patents and the Canadian Patent Appeal Board of a patent application by Amazon.com for its “one- click” online product-ordering technology. The Commissioner of Patents had held that Amazon’s application did not qualify as having patent- eligible subject matter under the Patent Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial and Intellectual Properties Chapter Doing Business in Canada Industrial and Intellectual Property
    Industrial and Intellectual Properties Chapter Doing Business in Canada Industrial and Intellectual Property I Industrial and Intellectual Property Copyright The Copyright Act (Canada) grants an exclusive right to the copyright owner of any original literary (e.g., novels, magazines and computer programs), dramatic (e.g., films, videos, scripts and plays), musical (e.g., music, lyrics and instrumental compositions) or artistic work (e.g., paintings, photographs, sculptures and architectural works) to control copying and other commercial exploitation of that work. In addition, makers have copyright in their sound recordings, performers have copyright in their performances and broadcasters have copyright in their communication signals (rights which are often referred to as “neighbouring” as they are in the copyright neighbourhood). The copyright owner of a work has the exclusive right to publish, produce, reproduce, translate, broadcast, adapt and distribute the work, perform it in public, communicate it to the public by telecommunication, make it available online and authorize others to do these acts. Generally, copyright in Canada exists for the life of the author plus 50 years following the end of the year of his or her death, after which time the work falls into the public domain. On November 30, 2018, Canada signed the USMCA which, if implemented, would extend the basic term of copyright in Canada to “...not less than the life of the author and 70 years from the author’s death”. Other terms apply to particular works, such as photographs, sound recordings, home videos, posthumous works and jointly authored works. Copyright arises automatically in Canada in any original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, including a compilation and sound recording, provided that the creator or author of the work is at the time of its creation a citizen, subject or person ordinarily resident in Canada or a treaty country and the work is first published (made available to the public) in Canada or a treaty country.
    [Show full text]
  • CPCC the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P. Minister Of
    CANADIAN PRIVATE COPYING COLLECTIVE SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DE PERCEPTION DE LA COPIE PRIVÉE 1235 Bay Street, Suite 900 Toronto, Ontario M5R 3K4 416 486 6832 1 800 892 7235 416 486 3064 [FAX] CPCC www.cpcc.ca The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage 25 Eddy Street, 12th Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5 The Honourable Navdeep Bains, P.C., M.P. Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry C.D. Howe Building, 235 Queen Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5 July 7, 2020 Market-driven private copying regime an important part of the path forward for the Canadian music industry Dear Minister Guilbeault and Minister Bains, On behalf of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), we would like to take an opportunity to thank the federal government for its support of the Canadian music industry ecosystem during these times. As the sector deals with the disruption and impact of COVID-19 across the country, we are encouraged by your government’s efforts in rolling out a series of emergency measures to address the sector’s immediate needs. As you know, the CPCC is an umbrella organization whose member collectives represent recording artists, composers, songwriters, music publishers and labels. The private copying levy is collected by CPCC in order to compensate these music creators and the businesses that invest in them for unlicensed private copying of their work. Since its enactment in 1997 by the Liberal government of the day, the private copying regime has generated over $300 million for over 100,000 rights-holders – a significant source of earned income that helped them to continue creating and commercializing important cultural content.
    [Show full text]