Copyright - News

  • – 2023-09-29 –

    CIPPIC has enjoyed success in its intervention in the appeal of a denial of default judgement in a file-sharing case:  Voltage Holdings LL.C. v Doe #1, 2023 FCA 194.

    In 2022, Voltage Pictures sought default judgement against a number of unnamed defendants alleged to have either directly shared files of a movie or to have allowed their internet connections to be used for that purpose. CIPPIC intervened in the motion, arguing that Voltage had not made out its case and in any event was proceeding on an incorrect theory of “authorization” of infringement. Justice Furlanetto refused to grant the motion for the reasons CIPPIC argued.

    Voltage appealed, arguing that Justice Furlanetto had erred in two ways:

  • – 2023-06-26 –

    The Federal Court, for a second time, has denied Voltage permission to proceed in its class lawsuit for file-sharing.

    Procedural Background

    In 2016, Voltage Pictures LL.C. sought to certify a class proceeding for copyright infringement against a class of unidentified internet subscribers alleged to have been found sharing movies online through the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. To succeed in bringing the class proceeding forward, Voltage had to convince a judge that the requirements of the test for certification of a class action had been met, namely:

    (1) the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action;

    (2) there is an identifiable class of two or more persons;

    (3) the claims of the class members raise common questions of law or fact;

    (4) a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the just and efficient resolution of the common questions of law or fact; 

    (5) there is a suitable class representative; and

    (6) the plaintiff must propose a workable plan for advancing the litigation and keeping class members informed.

  • – 2023-03-16 –

    CIPPIC today released a report highlighting several additional problems with the federal government’s proposed Online News Act, which seeks to extract money from large online companies like Google and Facebook to help fund Canadian journalism. The new report, entitled Bad News, highlights how key provisions of the Online News Act may be vague to the point of being unconstitutional, while excluding many of the most dynamic sectors of the evolving Canadian news media landscape from financial support. The report also details how the Online News Act undermines longstanding exceptions to the Copyright Act that are meant to protect the public interest, while also distorting Canadian digital policy away from regulating the toxic, ad-supported business models of major Silicon Valley companies. The reliance the Online News Act places on extracting profits from big tech companies to fund Canadian journalism may well explain the weakness of Bill C-27, the federal government’s much-delayed privacy reform bill, which fails to adequately regulate targeted digital advertising. CIPPIC’s report is authored by student intern Lexie Misterski, who is a second-year law student at the University of Ottawa, and its director, Vivek Krishnamurthy. The full text of our report can be downloaded by clicking here.

  • – 2022-10-30 –

    CIPPIC has filed its Responding Memorandum of Fact and Law with the Federal Court of Appeal in Voltage v Doe. The appeal involves CIPPIC’s successful intervention in Voltage Pictures’ motion for default judgement in one of its numerous mass copyright infringement proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada. Voltage had sought judgement against 30 anonymous internet subscribers whom Voltage had alleged it had caught sharing one of its movies through BitTorrent and who had failed to file a Statement of Defense.

     

    CIPPIC’s argument comes down to three core positions:

     

  • – 2022-07-15 –

    The Supreme Court of Canada today released its long-awaited decision in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association, 2022 SCC 30.

    Canada amended its legislation in 2012 to, in part, implement Canada’s obligations under the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty. The Treaty included an obligation to ensure that authors’ rights include the right to benefit from “pull” technologies - business models that make content available to consumers at a time and place of their choosing (in contrast to “push” technologies like radio, where the broadcaster determines the time and place).  At issue was the impact of the "making available" provisions of the Copyright Act: do these entitle copyright owners to payment for making a work available to stream, and a second payment when the stream actually occurs? 

  • – 2022-06-06 –

    Voltage Holdings, LLC V Doe#1 et al, 2022 FC 827, saw the first time a plaintiff in a Canadian copyright filesharing action sought a motion for default judgment against dozens of defendants. Voltage is no stranger to copyright litigation. The American film production company has been the plaintiff in numerous copyright infringement lawsuits around the world. These cases concern unauthorized online sharing of Voltage’s films by unidentified defendants. Voltage often opts to sue internet subscribers who were suspected to have unauthorized copies of Voltage’s films shared through their home networks, even if the subscriber and the person who shared the unauthorized copies were not necessarily one and the same.

    In this case as in others, Voltage had taken no steps to identify the alleged direct infringers. Instead, the defendants were internet subscribers that Voltage found using their IP addresses, through information provided to them by ISPs via a Norwich order. These defendants had not responded to Voltage’s previous communications regarding the alleged infringements and had filed no defense. Voltage sought to obtain statutory damages for infringement through a default judgment.

  • – 2022-05-30 –

    As the last few remaining NHL teams battle their way towards the Stanley Cup finals, the Federal Court has ordered Canadian ISPs to begin blocking NHL game streams accused of violating copyright Friday. While Canadian courts have previously recognized the availability of static website blocking (despite CIPPIC's objection), this order is the first of its kind in Canada, as we argued in our intervention. It implements a sophisticated system that relies on a private company to identify allegedly unauthorized streams using automated assessment tools and report these to Canadian ISPs for real-time blocking, and represents the next step and the never-ending expansion of remedies demanded by copyright holders in Canada.

    The order adopts a number of safeguards. It will only operate during the remainder of the playoffs, where there are fewer games to monitor and less opportunities for over-blocking. The Court also ordered an independent expert to audit the website blocking initiative. The independent audit will provide critical evidence that will be critical when courts are later asked to extend this remedy. Specifically, if Rogers, Bell, and the other media companies who applied for this order wish to extend its application beyond the 2022 playoff season, the independent audit will need to establish that collateral blocking of legitimate content was minimal and that the blocking was effective in actually increasing legitimate subscriptions rather than simply driving customers to other forms of infringement or adoption of VPN services.

    Image source: Stanislav Lvovsky, "Censored", Flickr, September 28, 2015, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

  • – 2021-09-20 –

    Titled Innovation and Balance, CIPPIC's submission to the Government of Canada consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence and IoT offers a set of cautious and balanced recommendations for maintaining Canada's copyright framework in the face of new technologies. CIPPIC's articling students Yuan Stevens and Liwah Keller, supported by a team of CIPPIC interns, took the lead in drafting CIPPIC's submissions.

  • – 2021-07-30 –

    The Supreme Court of Canada today released its decision in York University v. Access Copyright, 2021 SCC 32.  The case addressed two issues: whether Access Copyright’s Copyright Board tariff is mandatory, and whether copying by York pursuant to its Guidelines constitutes fair dealing.  Both courts below had ruled the tariff not mandatory and the Guidelines unfair.

    In a unanimous decision penned by Justice Abella (in her last case on the bench), the Court found that the tariff was not mandatory and so was unenforceable against York, and in light of the absence of any real legal issue between York and Access Copyright, that it would be inappropriate to decide the fair dealing issue. 

    However, the Court cautioned that this result should not “should not be construed as endorsing the reasoning of” the courts below, citing “some significant jurisprudential problems with those aspects of their judgments that warrant comment.”  The Court went on to “correct” those “errors” [para. 87-88]

    Highlights of that analysis include:

  • – 2021-04-26 –

    supreme court of canada
    "supreme court of canada" by jacob earl is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

    CIPPIC has filed its intervener factum in the Supreme Court in York University v Access Copyright, SCC No, 39222, an important case addressing the scope of educational fair dealing. CIPPIC argues that a purposive interpretation of fair dealing that embodies Charter values:/p>

    • recognizes that copyright is right to exclude, not simply be paid;
    • identifies the relevant perspective as that of the ultimate user;
    • recognizes universities’ unique role as cradles of authorship and innovation; 
    • appreciates educational institutions' role in society where truth is contested; and
    • appreciates that intermediaries and commercial actors are aspects of marketplaces that facilitate the socially beneficial exercise of both owners’ and users’ rights.

    David Fewer acted for CIPPIC.  CIPPIC was supported by a broad team of students, including articling student Bo Kruk and interns Sarah Crothers, Tina Dekker, Matthew Akl, and research assistant Courtney Wong.

    The hearing of this appeal is currently set for May 21, 2021.