Copyright - Topic 3General - Copyright Act - Interpretation - At issue was whether the streaming of files(musical works) from the Internet triggered by individual users constitutedcommunication “to the public” of the musical works by online music services(appellants) who made the files available to the users for streaming (Copyright Act, s.3(1)(f)) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... the appellants proposed rule thateach transmission should be analyzed in isolation because each was initiated at therequest of individual members of the public would have the effect of excluding allinteractive communications from the scope of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights tocommunicate to the public and to authorize such communications. A stream is ofteneffectuated at the request of the recipient. On-demand television allows viewers torequest and view the desired program at the time of their choosing. By definition, ondemandcommunications — relating to the so-called 'pull' technologies — are initiated atthe request of the user, independently of any other user, and each individual transmissionhappens in a point-to-point manner. None of these telecommunications would beconsidered as being made 'to the public' simply because the actual transmission occurs atthe initiative and discretion of the consumer to accept the invitation to the public toaccess the content. Nothing in the wording of s. 3(1)(f) of the [Copyright] Act impliessuch a limitation. A communication is not restricted to a purely non-interactive context" -See paragraphs 34 and 35.Copyright - Topic 3436Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Communication to the public bytelecommunication - The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers ofCanada applied for a tariff with respect to the performance and communication ofmusical works on, or by means of, the Internet - The Copyright Board found that thetransmission of a musical work to an individual by an online music service (streams)constituted was a communication of that work to the public by telecommunication(Copyright Act, 3(1)(f)) and thus were the proper subject for a tariff - Online musicservices, after an unsuccessful judicial review application, appealed - The Supreme Courtof Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the transmission of any file containing amusical work, starting with the first, from the online service's website to the customer'scomputer, at the customer's request, constituted "communicat[ing] the work to the publicby telecommunication" within the meaning of s. 3(1)(f) - See paragraphs 1 to 57.Copyright - Topic 3436Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Communication to the public bytelecommunication - In CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004), theSupreme Court of Canada held that the fax transmission of a single copy to a singleindividual was not a communication to the public, but stated: "This said, a series ofrepeated fax transmissions of the same work to numerous different recipients mightconstitute communication to the public in infringement of copyright ..." - The SupremeCourt of Canada, in the case at bar, rejected the notion that CCH required that eachtransmission had to be analyzed on its own, as a separate transaction, regardless ofwhether another communication of the same work to a different customer might occur at
a later point - The court held that the focus had to be on the sender's activities incommunicating a given work over time, rather than on the individual transmission - Itwas necessary to consider the broader context to determine whether a given point-topointtransmission engaged the exclusive right to communicate to the public - Seeparagraphs 24 to 31.Copyright - Topic 3436Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Communication to the public bytelecommunication - At issue was whether the streaming of files (musical works) fromthe Internet triggered by individual users constituted communication “to the public” ofthe musical works by online music services who made the files available to the users forstreaming (Copyright Act, s. 3(1)(f)) - The online music service providers argued that thecourt had to look at the "intention" of the sender in accomplishing a given transmission -As opposed to the situation where the sender took it upon himself to send out numerouscommunications ("blast" communication), in the case of a one-to one-to-onetransmission, at least that from an online music service to a customer at the customer’srequest, it was argued that there was no intention that the same work ever be transmittedagain “because it is entirely at the request of the consuming public” - In the serviceproviders' view, that would justify differential treatment of the point-to-pointtransmission and the “blast” communication - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected theservice providers' argument - See paragraphs 32 to 35.Copyright - Topic 3436Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Communication to the public bytelecommunication - [See all Copyright - Topic 3].Copyright - Topic 3440Fees, charges or royalties - Determination of - Judicial review - [See first AdministrativeLaw - Topic 3202].Copyright - Topic 3444Fees, charges or royalties - Internet (world wide web) - Music - [See first and secondCopyright - Topic 3 and first Copyright - Topic 3436].Copyright - Topic 5667Copyright Board - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - [See first Administrative Law - Topic3202].Courts - Topic 103Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - English, American and Foreign authorities- American decisions - [See eighth Copyright - Topic 3].Statutes - Topic 1604Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - General - History - [See seventh Copyright - Topic 3].Statutes - Topic 515