DOCSLIB.ORG

EB-2014-0116 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD in the MATTER of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EB-2014-0116 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD in the MATTER of The EB-2014-0116 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, Schedule B to the Energy Competition Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited for an Order or Orders approving or fixing just and reasonable rates and other service charges for the distribution of electricity as of May 1, 2015; AND IN THE MATTER OF Rule 27 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. AMPCO BOOK OF AUTHORITIES (COPYRIGHT AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES) - MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION OF THE CANADIAN ELECTRICITY ASSOCIATION DAVIS LLP 6000 - 1 First Canadian Place 100 King Street West Toronto ON M5X 1E2 David Crocker Andy Radhakant Telephone 416.365.3500 Facsimile 416.365.7886 Counsel to AMPCO - 2 - TO: Ontario Energy Board 2701 - 2300 Yonge Street Toronto ON M4P 1E4 Tel: 416.481.1967 Fax: 416.440.7656 AND TO: Torys LLP 79 Wellington St. W. 30th Floor Box 270, TD South Tower Toronto ON M5K 1N2 Charles Keizer and Crawford Smith Tel: 416.865.7512 Fax: 416.865.7380 Counsel to Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited AND TO: Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 3400 - 333 Bay Street Toronto ON M5H 2S7 Peter Ruby and Michel Shneer Tel: 416.979.2211 Fax: 416.979.1234 Counsel to Canadian Electricity Association AND TO: Jay Shepherd Professional Corporation 2300 - 2399 Yonge Street Toronto ON M4P 1E4 Mark Rubenstein Tel: 416.483.3300 Fax: 416.483.3305 Counsel to the School Energy Coalition AND TO: Attorney General of Ontario Constitutional law Branch 4th Floor - 720 Bay Street Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Fax: 416.326.4015 AND TO: Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice P.O. Box 36 3400 - 130 King Street West Toronto ON M5X 1K6 Fax: 416.952.0298 - 3 - INDEX 1. Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks, Second Edition, Vaver, 2011 2. Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42 3. Home Office v. Harman, [1981] Q.B. 534 (C.A.) 4. Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. v. Kaplan, Docket No. 12-4030 (United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit) 5. Manitoba v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2013 FCA 91 6. Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61 7. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13 8. Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37 Page 1 ICLR: King's/Queen's Bench Division/1981/HOME OFFICE v. HARMAN - [1981] Q.B. 534 [1981] Q.B. 534 [COURT OF APPEAL] HOME OFFICE v. HARMAN 1980 Nov. 19, 20, 21; 27 Park J. 1981 Jan. 28, 29, 30; Feb. 6 Lord Denning M.R., Templeman and Dunn L.JJ. Contempt of Court - Solicitor - Disclosure of documents - Solicitor's implied undertaking not to use documents disclosed on discovery except for purposes of litigation - Confidential documents disclosed and read in court at trial - Solicitor allowing journalist access to documents after trial for purpose of writing feature article - Whether breach of implied undertaking - Whether serious contempt The respondent, a solicitor and legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ("N.C.C.L."), was acting as solicitor for the plaintiff in an action against the Home Office arising out of his treatment in prison in an experimental "control unit." During the course of the action the Home Office disclosed a large number of documents. The solicitor for the Home Office, in a letter dated October 17, 1979, stated the Home Office did not wish the documents to be used for the general purposes of the N.C.C.L. outside the respondent's function as solicitor for the plaintiff in the action. The respondent replied to that letter on the same day, saying that she was well aware of the rule that documents obtained on discovery should not be used for any purposes other than for the case in hand. The Home Office was later ordered to disclose six confidential documents which they objected to produce on the ground of public interest immunity. The respondent selected from the documents disclosed those required for use at the trial of the plaintiff's action, and in due course they were read out by counsel at the hearing. A few days after the hearing the respondent allowed a journalist whom she knew to be a feature writer, and who had been present during part of the hearing, to have access to the documents that had been read out, including the confidential documents, for the purpose of writing a newspaper article. The article was highly critical of Home Office ministers and civil servants. The Home Office applied under R.S.C., Ord. 52, r. 9 for an order against the respondent for contempt of court, alleging that she was in breach of the undertaking, implied by law and affirmed in her letter of October 17, not to use documents obtained on discovery for purposes other than those of the action in which they were disclosed. Park J. held that the respondent was in contempt of court, but accepted that she had acted in good faith and imposed no penalty. On appeal by the respondent:- Held, dismissing the appeal, that although the right to privacy and respect for confidential documents could be Page 2 overridden in the interests of justice, and a party to litigation might be ordered to disclose all the documents in his possession relevant to the issues in the action, the court implied an undertaking by the party to whom disclosure had been made that he would make use of the documents only for the [1981] Q.B. 534 Page 535 purposes of the action; that such an undertaking was not destroyed by reading out the documents in open court, nor did the public interest require that it should be so destroyed; and that there could be no further use of the documents or dissemination of their contents without the consent of the owner (post, pp. 557D-G, 558H - 559A, E-F, 561D-E, G-H, 562C, E); that, in the present case the inference could be drawn that the respondent had induced the belief that she had obtained disclosure of the documents on behalf of the N.C.C.L., and since she had used them or authorised their use for the purpose of reproduction in the press, she had not confined her use of them to use in the action brought by the plaintiff against the Home Office, and accordingly, she had committed a serious contempt of court (post, pp. 556D-E, G-H, 557H - 558B, E-F, 562D-E, 564B-C). Scott v. Scott [1913] A.C. 417, H.L.(E.) and Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] Q.B. 881, C.A. considered. Per Dunn L.J. If a reporter wishes to check the date of a document or its exact wording, he or she can always ask counsel or solicitor for the party who has disclosed the document. There is no reason why such a request should be refused (post, p. 563D-E). Decision of Park J. post, p. 536H et seq. affirmed. The following cases are referred to in the judgments in the Court of Appeal: Baker v. Bethnal Green Borough Council [1945] 1 All E.R. 135, C.A. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England [1979] 1 W.L.R. 473; [1979] 2 All E.R. 461, C.A.; [1980] A.C. 1090; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 722; [1979] 3 All E.R. 700, H.L.(E.). Conway v. Rimmer [1968] A.C. 910; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 998; [1968] 1 All E.R. 874, H.L.(E.). Gammell v. Wilson [1981] 2 W.L.R. 248; [1981] 1 All E.R. 578, H.L.(E.). Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. [1980] A.C. 136; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 955; [1979] 1 All E.R. 744, H.L.(E.). Rex v. Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr. 2527. Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] Q.B. 881; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 63; [1977] 3 All E.R. 677, C.A. Schering Chemicals Ltd. v. Falkman Ltd. [1981] 2 W.L.R. 848; [1981] 2 All E.R. 321, C.A. Scott v. Scott [1913] A.C. 417, H.L.(E.). Page 3 Williams v. Home Office (No. 2) [1981] 1 All E.R. 1211. The following additional cases were cited in argument in the Court of Appeal: ALAE v. BEA [1973] I.C.R. 601, N.I.R.C. Alterskye v. Scott [1948] 1 All E.R. 469. Church of Scientology of California v. Department of Health and Social Security [1979] 1 W.L.R. 723; [1979] 3 All E.R. 97, C.A. Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd. v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1975] Q.B. 613; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 728; [1975] 1 All E.R. 41. National Sulphuric Acid Association's Agreement, In re (No. 2) (1966) L.R. 6 R.P. 210, R.P.Ct.(E. & W.). The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Park J.: Alterskye v. Scott [1948] 1 All E.R. 469. [1981] Q.B. 534 Page 536 Attorney-General v. New Statesman and Nation Publishing Co. Ltd. [1981] Q.B. 1; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 246; [1980] 1 All E.R. 644, D.C. Halcon International Inc. v. Shell Transport and Trading Co. [1979] R.P.C. 97, Whitford J. and C.A. Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] Q.B. 881; [1977] 3 W.L.R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Limitation Where Author Is First Owner of Copyright: Reversionary Interest in the Copyright Some Comments on Section 14 Of
    1 LIMITATION WHERE AUTHOR IS FIRST OWNER OF COPYRIGHT: REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE COPYRIGHT SOME COMMENTS ON SECTION 14 OF THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT ACT * LAURENT CARRIÈRE ROBIC, LLP LAWYERS , PATENT & TRADEMARK AGENTS Text of Section 1.0 Related Sections 2.0 Related Regulations 3.0 Prior Legislation 3.1 Corresponding Section in Prior Legislation 3.2 Legislative History 3.2.1 S.C. 1921, c. 24, s. 11(2) part and 11(3). 3.2.2 R.S.C. 1927, c. 32, s. 12(3) and (4). 3.2.3 3.2.3 R.S.C. 1952, c. 55, s. 12(5) & (6). 3.2.4 R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, s. 12(5) & (6). 3.2.5 R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 14(1) & (2). 3.3 Transitional 3.3.1 S.C. 1999, c. 24, s. 55(3) 4.0 Purpose 5.0 Commentary 5.1 History 5.2 General 5.3 Applicability 5.3.1 Author first owner 5.3.2 “After June 4, 1921” 5.3.3 “Otherwise than by will” 5.4 Public Order 5.4.1 Agreement to the contrary 5.4.2 Contrary agreement void 5.4.3 Asset of the author’s estate 5.4.4 Permanent Damage to Reversionary Interest 5.5 Exception 5.5.1 Collective work 5.5.2 Licence © CIPS, 2003. * Lawyer and trade-mark agent, Laurent Carrière is a partner with ROBIC, LLP , a multidisciplinary firm of lawyers, patent and trademark agents. Published as part of a Robic’s Canadian Copyright Act Annotated (Carswell).
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Infringement of Musical Compositions: a Systematic Appproach E
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Copyright Infringement of Musical Compositions: A Systematic Appproach E. Scott rF uehwald Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Fruehwald, E. Scott (1993) C" opyright Infringement of Musical Compositions: A Systematic Appproach," Akron Law Review: Vol. 26 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol26/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fruehwald: Copyright Infringement of Musical Compositions COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH by E. SCoTr FRUEHWALD INTRODUCTION This article addresses the problems that courts face when dealing with copyright infringement of musical compositions. Infringement of music presents special problems for judges and juries because music is an intuitive art that is nonverbal and nonvisual. Consequently, traditional methods of establishing infringement are often unreliable when applied to music. This paper will concentrate on the question of whether a composition that is similar to, but not the same as, another work infringes on the other work.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Policy Classification: Academic
    Copyright Policy Classification: Academic Responsible Authority: Director, Academic Services & Learning Resources Executive Sponsor: Vice President Student Success Approval Authority: Board of Governors Date First Approved: January 8, 2014 Date Last Reviewed: January 8, 2014 Mandatory Review Date: May 1, 2020 PURPOSE This policy will: • Define acceptable use of material protected by copyright, • Outline the responsibilities of all users of copyright materials, • Help College employees and students comply with the legal requirements of the Copyright Act, and • Establish a framework for responsible practice. SCOPE This policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students of George Brown College. Excluded from the scope of this policy is: • The College’s ownership of copyright, patents (see the College Policy on Intellectual Property) • The ownership of copyright materials created by College academic employees (see the Academic Employees Collective Agreement) • The status of the College as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) This document is available in accessible format DEFINITIONS Any definitions listed below apply to this document only with no implied or intended institution-wide use. Word/Term Definition Academic Employees Used interchangeably with “faculty” to refer to full-time, partial-load, part-time, and sessional professors, instructors, counselors, and librarians. Accessible Media Consultant The Librarian within the Library Learning Commons of the Academic Services & Learning Resources Department who is responsible for the administration of the College’s Policy on Captioned Media and E- Text and for supporting faculty and staff with compliance. Authorization Used interchangeably with “permission” to refer to the consent of the copyright owner to allow someone to do something with a work (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Dsti/Stp(2014)37
    For Official Use DSTI/STP(2014)37 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 05-Nov-2014 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL POLICY For Official Use Official For DSTI/STP(2014)37 LEGAL ASPECTS OF OPEN ACCESS TO PUBLICLY FUNDED RESEARCH CSTP Delegates are invited to provide comments on this document by 14 November 2014. In the absence of comments, or after the document has been revised in the light of comments, the document will be submitted for approval by written procedure and subsequently integrated into a report entitled "Inquiries into Intellectual Property's Economic Impact", which is part of the multidisciplinary OECD project entitled "New Sources of Growth: Knowledge-based Capital, Phase 2". Please submit comments and questions to Giulia Ajmone ([email protected]) by 14 November 2014. Contacts: Giulia Ajmone Marsan (STI/CSO); E-mail: [email protected]; Jeremy West (STI/DEP); E-mail: [email protected]; MarioCervantes (STI/CSO); E-mail: [email protected]; English JT03365628 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of Or. English international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory,
    [Show full text]
  • Project Gutenberg Canada, ( a Website Distributing Free Digital Editions of Books in the Canadian Public Domain
    20 January 2011 1 of 7 Protecting and Enhancing Canada's Public Domain A brief to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-32 by Mark Akrigg, founder of Project Gutenberg Canada, (http://gutenberg.ca/) a website distributing free digital editions of books in the Canadian Public Domain. Executive Summary Canada's Public Domain is at risk, and needs the active protection of the Parliament of Canada. The author of this brief, Dr. Mark Akrigg, makes two major recommendations: 1. A "Safe Harbour" provision for works more than 75 years old where the life dates of the authors are not known. This has long been needed, and will be absolutely essential if copyright terms for photographs are extended, as currently proposed in Bill C-32. 2. No extensions of copyright durations. Specific language is proposed for related amendments to Bill C-32. These amendments are intended to be concise, straightforward, and uncontroversial. 20 January 2011 2 of 7 Protecting and Enhancing Canada's Public Domain A brief to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-32 by Mark Akrigg, founder of Project Gutenberg Canada, (http://gutenberg.ca/) a website distributing free digital editions of books in the Canadian Public Domain. An executive summary is provided on page 1 of this brief. Background to this Brief I am the founder of Project Gutenberg Canada, which was launched on Canada Day 2007, with the mission of providing free high-quality digital editions of books in the Public Domain. We give a place of honour in our collection to Canadian history and literature, in English and French.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for a Specialized Copyright Court: Eliminating the Jurisdictional Advantage, 21 Hastings Comm
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 21 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-1999 The aC se for a Specialized Copyright Court: Eliminating the Jurisdictional Advantage Michael Landau Donald E. Biederman Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Landau and Donald E. Biederman, The Case for a Specialized Copyright Court: Eliminating the Jurisdictional Advantage, 21 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 717 (1999). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol21/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Case for a Specialized Copyright Court: Eliminating the Jurisdictional Advantage by MICHAEL LANDAU* & DONALD E. BIEDERMAN* I. The Main Battlefields of Copyright ............................ 720 A. Jurisdiction and the Onrushing Internet ............ 720 1. Exclusive Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............ 720 2. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue .................... 720 B. The Basics of Infringement Actions ..................... 723 C . A ccess ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Legal Framework for Global Joint Copyright Management in Musical Works – Based on Rawls’S Theory of Justice
    A Legal Framework for Global Joint Copyright Management in Musical Works – Based on Rawls’s Theory of Justice by Zhiqin Wu A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PHD) IN THE LAW SCHOOL, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY, UK (March 2018) © Zhiqin Wu DECLARATION I confirm that the thesis is my own work, that is has not been submitted in substantially the same form for the award of a higher degree elsewhere, and that all quotations have been distinguished and the sources of identification specifically acknowledged. 2 ABSTRACT The present music market has shown an imbalance of interests in terms of economic, social and cultural interests. The present research has found that joint music copyrights management is responsible for this issue. Joint management organisations (JMOs) are competing with each other in an unfair market worldwide due to the lack of harmonised rules to standardize their behaviours. It is imperative to establish a promising international copyright legal framework for regulating their behaviours, providing a fairer and common arena for both CMOs and IMEs, enabling JMOs to fulfil multiple functions so as to strike a real balance of interests between copyright stakeholders in music industry. It would also facilitate the cross-border flow of musical works in the digital era where copyrighted musical works flow across borders easily. The proposed theoretical framework is formulated on the basis of Rawls’s justice theory which provides powerful and systematic explanation and standards to evaluate and design JMOs’ functions. The standard of multi-objective, named economic, social and cultural objectives, is proposed for balancing interests at stake, more precisely, justifying the interests of the least well-off.
    [Show full text]
  • Creators' Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement Christopher B
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 6 Article 6 11-2008 "Does That Sound Familiar?": Creators' Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement Christopher B. Jaeger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Christopher B. Jaeger, "Does That Sound Familiar?": Creators' Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement, 61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1903 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol61/iss6/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Does That Sound Familiar?": Creators' Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement I. INTRODU CTION ................................................................... 1904 II. COPYRIGHT LAW & UNCONSCIOUS COPYING ...................... 1907 A. The Two Aims of Copyright Law ............................ 1907 B. The Anatomy of a Copyright Infringement Cla im ...................................................................... 19 10 C. The Independent CreationDefense ......................... 1912 III. IMPLICIT MEMORY & COPYRIGHT ....................................... 1914 IV. THREE CASES OF UNCONSCIOUS COPYING ......................... 1919 A. The Beginning: Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
    E SCCR/23/10 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JULY 20, 2012 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Twenty-third Session Geneva, November 21 to 25, 28, 29 and December 2, 2011 REPORT adopted by the Committee SCCR/23/10 page 2 1. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (hereinafter referred to as the “Standing Committee”, or “the SCCR”) held its twenty-third session in Geneva from November 21 to 25, 28, 29 and December 2, 2011. 2. The following Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and/or members of the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works were represented in the meeting: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen (89). 3. The European Union (EU) participated in the meeting in a member capacity. 4. The following intergovernmental organizations took part in the meeting in an observer capacity: African Union (AU), International Labour Organization (ILO), South Centre, World Trade Organization (WTO) (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Tm-Lane Lin a Thesis Subrnitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies
    A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT PERFORMERS' RIGHTS PROTECTION IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE REPUBCIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) Tm-Lane Lin A thesis subrnitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirernents for the degrce of ;Master of Laws Graduate Programme in Law Osgoode Hall Law School York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada National Library Bibliothéque nationale of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Sewices senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellingron Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON K 1A ON4 Ottawa ON K 1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts kom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. A Comparative Look at Performers' Righis Protection in Canada. The United States of America, The United Kingdom and the Republic of China (Taiwan) Tm-Lane Lin a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of York University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of h4astt.r of Laws O 1998 Permission has been granted to the LBRARY OF YORK UNIVERSITY to lend or seIl copies of this thesis, to the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA to microfilm this thesis and to lend or seIl copies of the film, and to UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS to publish an abstract of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Striking Similarities: Toward a Quantitative Measure of Melodic Copyright Infringement Guillaume Laroche I Sincerely Thank Dr. J
    Striking Similarities: Toward a Quantitative Measure of Melodic Copyright Infringement Guillaume Laroche I sincerely thank Dr. Jonathan Wild, Audrey Laroche, and the staff and anonymous reviewers of Intégral for their helpful comments in improving drafts of this study. In a well-publicized 2008 lawsuit, guitarist Joe Satriani accused the band Coldplay of misappropriating his musical materials.1 The lawsuit, filed under the provisions of the United States Copyright Act, generated many news reports and even online videos comparing and contrasting the artists’ songs. 2 Though the exploration in popular discourse of musical plagiarism3 lawsuits seems to be a new phenomenon, musical plagiarism has appeared before American and other courts for well over a century. Such lawsuits are even somewhat common in the music industry; they are of particular interest to those people in musical careers, as the legal precedents of such lawsuits hold the potential to directly affect them. Yet, based on the paucity of discourse on the topic, musicians from outside the music industry, such as music theorists, appear to routinely ignore such proceedings. They, too, should take an interest in such cases. Such lawsuits often address questions that are fundamental to the analytical study of music, and place these questions at the center of popular social and entertainment discourse. In court, prosecuting and defending attorneys alike seek to highlight similarities or differences between their clients’ respective works; although legal professionals use 1 BBC News Online, “Guitarist Satriani Sues Coldplay” (London: BBC, December 5, 2008). Available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7766683.stm, accessed March 3, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Does Matter
    COPYRIGHT DOES MATTER STUDENT GUIDELINES FOR POSTING, SCANNING OR COPYING The copyright law of Canada governs the copying and communicating of copyright- protected material. Certain copies and communications may infringe copyright law. These fair dealing guidelines are provided for your information. You are solely responsible for knowing your rights and responsibilities under the Copyright Act. Justice Institute of British Columbia is not responsible for infringing copies made by the users of these machines. ______________________________________________________________________ The fair dealing provision in the Copyright Act permits the copying and communication of short excerpts from a copyright-protected work, without permission or the payment of copyright royalties. 1. A student may copy and communicate, in paper or electronic form, a single copy of a short excerpt from a copyright-protected work for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting, education, satire or parody. 2. Copying for the purpose of news reporting, criticism or review must mention the source and, if given in the source, the name of the author or creator of the work. 3. A single copy of a short excerpt from a copyright-protected work may be posted to a learning or course management system that is password protected or otherwise restricted to students of a particular course. 4. A short excerpt means any one of a to g: a. up to 10% of a copyright-protected work (including a literary work, musical score, sound recording, and an audiovisual work) b. one chapter from a book c. a single article from a periodical d. an entire artistic work (including a painting, print, photograph, diagram, drawing, map, chart, and plan) from a copyright-protected work containing other artistic works e.
    [Show full text]