Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Bell Canada - Essay Example

Society of Composers, and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada The rapid advancement in information technology has tuned the world into a global village. Access to computers and the internet is widespread and individuals can access information that was initially difficult if not impossible to obtain. The numerous internet sites that offer the opportunities for review of information on items meant for sale is a common phenomenon. Although the services serve, as a marketing mechanism for the product, there exist questions over the right of access to such information, however, limited the time. The famous case between the Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada and Bell Canada emerged from the dilemma that exists on the extent of the right to access copyrighted information (Hovenkamp 48). With the laws that govern intellectual property being clear on the legality of the limited access to copyrighted songs on the internet, the demand for royalty from the authors causes confusion on the extent of justified free access to such songs. The case between the two entities begs to ask where to draw the line between the freedom for information access and the copyright laws. This research aims to explore the flawlessness of the Canadian copyright laws stipulating that the free previews comprise fair dealing for the intent of research. Research Questions   • What is the significance of the copyright law in Canada and other areas of the globe? Copyright laws in Canada and across the globe protect artists, musicians and intellectuals regarding their intellectual property. This includes artworks, songs, music compositions, business ideas and many other intangible assets such as company names and logos. Copyright law gives the sense of security to artists so they can safely promote their skills/products. The Canadian Copyright Act considers a compilation as “a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or of parts thereof.” (Goldstein & Hugenholtz 209). For this reason, the artists and musicians seek copyright protection, it acknowledges them as the rightful owners of their creation. It is necessary to give musicians the copyright law cover but a line needs to be drawn where it ends too. The courts make guiding principles so that no one exploits copyright laws. The same premise also pushes them to strictly define what qualifies as copyright infringement. When something is quantified under the courts authority then no company or musician can blame the innocent for violating their copyright protection. It is not only Canada, the copyright laws exist all across the globe protecting the rights and skills of artists, musicians and other talents. The flawless nature of Canadian copyright laws are evident from the case between Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada and Bell Canada. It clearly defines what the copyright laws should comprise of, it also clearly identifies where the line needs to be drawn between copyrights violation and access to information. The appeal by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) was rejected by the court upholding the notion that nowhere royalties need to be paid to SOCAN from listening to the previews of songs as “fair dealing” covers the matter and such of the previews is for research purposes (“The Lawyers Weekly”, 2012). SOCAN was representing authors, music publishers and composers, they operate online music services and selling music downloads. The Supreme Court of Canada gave five rulings covering royalties on music downloads (including streaming), downloading video games and using copyrighted educational material. The court ruled against a royalty on downloading of music and videos that is intended for previews. The court did uphold the royalty on streaming music over the Internet (CBS News, 2012). • Which factors constitute the right of access to information? The main factor that constitute the right of access to information is research. In more social terms this research can be interpreted as sampling. For instance before purchasing the customer has the right to test the quality of the product. Test driving a car, tasting a small amount of food product, free access to subscription websites, all fall under the same category of research or sampling. This gives the customer the right to access information. • What kinds of issues correspond to the dilemma of copyright law in Canada? Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada (2012) case is a classic to understand the issues that contribute to the dilemma of copyright laws and infringements in Canada. SOCAN is a society that represents royalties for performances of music publishers, authors and composers. They filed a case to seek the rights of song previews. To understand these issues one needs to know what rights do the copyright owners have. Copyright owners in Canada have exclusive rights to keep others from copying and using other acts that fall under any form of engagement with their intellectual property (Hovenkamp & Lemley 46). The court ruling in SOCAN v. Bell Canada case cannot be considered in isolation, there is a history that follows up to this case in 2012. The gradual amendments in the definition of copyright laws, their applications and their infringements are important to understand that the Canadian courts have reached a conclusive decision about what constitutes as infringement especially in the wake of Internet explosion. In 1997 Canada made specific performers rights that gave them copyright like rights for some of their performances. However, there is still some exceptions to infringements. The fair dealing provision is the one that governs these exceptions. This relaxed view of copyright law is somewhat similar to the United States fair use defense (Hovenkamp & Lemley 46). In fact Canada federal Institute of the copyright law is based on UKs copyright act of 1911 (Strowel 200). The case of SOCAN v. Bell Canada exactly touches the dilemma of what constitutes an infringement of copyright law. The company made an appeal in the court to give them the royalties of small clips of songs offered as previews. The customers stream through these small samples and choose to buy the song or not. The company claims to charge for this previewing the song too. After several legislative attempts by governments the copyright act got Royal assent in 2012 (Bannerman 197). The dilemma involved several provisions responding to various concerns of Canadian companies that included satire, parody and education. The dilemma also incorporated educational institutes regarding distant learning and whether someone can reproduce an alternate format of a unique document, this discussion considered the “YoutTube exception” (Bannerman 197). SOCAN v. Bell Canada is considered a defining milestone in achieving a balance between copyright protection and copyright infringement. The matter of photocopied textbooks that the teachers use is also under scrutiny. But the court rejected argument that the royalties have to be paid when teachers use the textbooks in the classrooms (Fitzpatrick, 2012). The fair dealing provision in the copyright legislation covers the use of textbooks for teaching purposes. Moreover, there was substantial pressure on the Canadian government to adhere to the American style of digital locks provisions (Shaw, 2014). Due to the proceedings of these arguments the WIPO Internet treaties was put into place that circumvented digital locks that would control the access to working. It also prevented from importing, distributing, manufacturing, renting or any other activity following under the circumvention devices (Bannerman 197). The court ruling in SOCAN v. Bell Canada case considers all these court proceedings across the timeline. They also help to safely predict what the future holds regarding this law. Critiquing this dilemma is helpful in acquiring an impartial view of the copyright law. Both sides are right as they both demand their rights. The dilemma is to draw the line between where someones right end and other’s freedom begins (freedom to accessing information). There is also the factor of exploiting the copyright laws in Canada where institutes and companies abuse and make a lot of money by scaring people to pay damages under copyright infringements. The Canadian Internet policy and Public interest clinic director David Fewer is very critical of the recent developments in the copyright infringement laws (Shaw, 2014). The director also made an intervention in the case between Voltage Pictures and ISP TechSavvy (Shaw, 2014). Voltage was seeking identity of subscribers that have allegedly downloaded movies illegally (Shaw, 2014). This case explains what can go wrong in case companies start exploiting their protection. This scenario also poses a challenge for the courts as they have to remain just and impartial. It allows copyright holders to see that the courts would protect their laws. However, at the same time the courts cannot be used and manipulated by copyright trolls. Any excuse in the law that can be exploited will be exploited. The severity of infringement is also a huge matter of concern because if someone downloads one song as a preview to buy the full album, and the copyright exploiters can severely penalize this person. The victim can be subjected to great amount of abusive private penalty. The recent decision by the federal court specifically encompasses both sides of this dilemma. It asks the Internet service providers to release the names and addresses of those subscribers that are involved in illegal downloading. Conversely, it also limits the window for exploiting the copyright infringement laws. The requirement to highlight the names of illegal downloading suspects also limits the chance of companies privately seeking damages from consumers by scaring them into paying compensation. It is a matter of making the whole process more transparent. In laymans terms in case someone steps over the line and illegally downloads a movie this person would not be subjected to huge sums of money directly from the company. As the courts decisions and guidance is there, the punitive damages for illegally downloading the content is approximately the price of buying the DVD or renting the movie (Shaw, 2014). In other words whole amount of statutory damage would amount to a minimum of hundred dollars • Does the Canadian copyright law that promotes the use of reviews for the purposes of research possess some validity? The Canadian copyright law promoting the use of reviews for the purpose of research have considerable validity. Buyer be aware demands that the buyer needs to know what he is buying before the purchase is made. It is only fair to assume that research is the only way that entitles the buyer to have sufficient knowledge of the product, so that he can make prudent decisions of buying or not buying. Regarding the use of reviews or criticism the judgment of the McLachlin C. J. and C. J. and LeBel, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Abella (2012) holds a lot of importance. Section 13 of their judgment focuses on the use of “criticism or review” regarding the purpose of “research or private study”. The court decided that any act that is encompassed within research or private study is permissible. For instance as soon as the board found that photocopier stickers are used for research or private study they announced that there was no further investigation required. However, the interesting thing was if the same sticker is regarded as a criticism or review it is also treated as a research or private study, meaning it does not come under copyright law infringement. This is a clear indication that the Canadian copyright law promotes the use of reviews and criticism. It wont be a far-fetched exaggeration by connecting the dots and implying that the buyer be aware statute requires the form of research as well as the reviews and criticism that makes the buyer fully aware what they are purchasing. • Is it possible to establish solutions to the dilemma that relate to the issues of copyright and freedom of access to information in Canada?  To reach a reasonable solution for the dilemma of copyright and freedom to access information there needs to be a neutral ground or a standard according to which all the copyright requirements can be made. ‘Buyer be aware’ is a more loaded term than it appears to be. For instance if similar cases to the one under discussion are considered and analyzed how the court rulings have always been oriented, it is the proof that there is no other solution than to take care of the premise that the buyer should be aware. This requires that the buyer needs to have their own research or have access to information before buying the product. The copyright law does not only apply to musicians and authors, it also applies to other items such as video games and business ideas. The case of Entertainment Software Association versus Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (2012) is also similar to the one under discussion. However there is evidence suggesting that any work available online or archived in a public database is considered published; the premise here is that any communication over the Internet constitutes as communication to public through telecommunication. The preliminary findings of the copyright law in Canada and the globe and its relations to the rights to information access can be summed up as follows; the copyright laws are indispensable in the society especially in light of the increasing technological advancement that Canada and the world keep witnessing. According to Epstein (100), Copyright rule, like other key sections of public policy, necessitates a solid securing of fundamental doctrines. The apparent need to anchor copyright discussions in a concrete policy background and, hence, to build up a coherent and expectantly persuasive narrative on the phenomenon is paramount. Moreover, the right of access of information is a factor of many elements including, the source of information, the age of the information seekers, the content of the information and the author’s intention with the information just to mention but a few. There exists some dilemma with reference to the Canadian copyright laws, this associate with among other things, associate with the aspect of royalty and the need to market the products while promoting freedom of information access in the nation. Craig Forcese (509), the copyright law is a form of contradiction, which, at a more realistic level, transforms into a digital impasse for IP vendors and conventional content providers (Hovenkamp 46). The elements mentioned above manifest in their habitually hesitant or undecided forays into the online setting. Whereas they may certainly stand to advantage from invention that is more proficient and sharing of information products, right holders and actors in the industry have more concern in the possibility of the benefits undercutting owing. This could be because of the increased danger of imitation and unlawful distribution that new technologies entail.  The possibility of finding solutions to the dilemma that relate to the issues of copyright and freedom of access to information in Canada is a more complex issue. With questions over the ability of the much-needed technology surviving the regulation of the government, the dilemma that exists over the copyright laws becomes even more evident (Epstein 87-104). The cooperation of the diverse sectors of the society in enhancing the use of technology, the capacity to access information, and the growth of the authors of such content will go a long way in handling such issues. There is a lot of research experimentation and law proceedings that are sufficient to reach a conclusion in solution for copyright infringements in Canada. The year 2012 is considered a milestone in reaching a consensus for the copyright infringement laws. The matter in very plain terms is that the copyright companies want copyright credits for the previews sampling the research for their music products. In contrast, the public has a right to free access information which also entitled stem to see if the product is worth buying. The year 2012 is considered the third phase in copyright reform process that began with the public consultations back in 2001 (Bannerman 197). As far as the sustainable solution is concerned David Vaver forecasts that the new millennium will see no Canadian copyright laws (Bannerman 201). It means that due to international agreements the Canadian copyright law will start to look more like the laws of other countries. This discussion is not vague as it significantly validates the original thesis of this paper; the Canadian courts holding that free previews fall under fair dealing for the intent of research. It has significant validity as it has practical implications that serve justice. Fair dealing cannot be interpreted in a restrictive fashion. Court’s ruling in the favor of fair use of copyrights is almost a perfect balance between promoting public interest (giving access to the public) and protecting due credit of the author, musician, artist etc. The whole debate revolves around analyzing fair dealing. The courts ruling is flawless in the sense that previews of songs on the Internet fall under fair dealing. For instance the test set by the court to qualify something as fair dealing is the objective assessment of the research. It is unblemished that the purpose of the research should facilitate the consumer. Besides the songs do not only have positive reviews, the negative reviews also impact the decision of the buyer in understanding the quality of the product. This factor is considered fair even though the research falls under commercial purposes. The fair dealing argument also depends on the nature of the dealing for instance listening to the preview of a song over and over is itself the proof that no other copy exists for the user. The court’s decision of limiting the preview of a four-minute song for 30 seconds is also fair in the sense that it gives the user sufficient evidence about the quality of the product. Following the same argument it also makes sense why the court rejected SOCAN’s argument that the length of this preview should be based on and aggregate amount of previews and not on the amount of each preview. The reason why this makes the ruling flawless is because if the court had accepted the argument then the balance between copyright law and technological neutrality would have been disturbed. There is no alternative available therefore the only way it customer can decide whether to buy a song or not is to hear the preview. This amounts to the necessary research. There is also an indication that the parties to the case did not contest the wish to sell it or promoting the sales of a song. Hence it is only obvious that the previews of the song in fact support the sales of the artwork and marketing promotions. When the customer identifies a song then they really like to buy it. Hence supporting the fair dealing argument. The previews of the song do not change the nature of the work. They do not negatively affect the work in any way. The previews of a song cannot be considered a music competition because they are only 30 seconds long and they are not freely available for download. Regarding the validity of the Canadian copyright law regarding the use of reviews for the purposes of research Craig Forcese (510), suggests that, the law is valid irrespective of the opposition it attracts. The author denotes that the conflict between copyright policy and associations like Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers exposes itself in the dilemma of fair dealing and other copyright omissions. The fair dealing protection authorizes reasonable transactions with copyright protected works for the rationale of research, criticism, private study, and reviews among other things. The theory of the copyright law and its execution seeks to strike a balance between protection and freedom. Hence, under the discussion in this paper it is evident that Canadian copyright laws are flawlessness in stipulating that the free previews comprise fair dealing for the intent of research. References Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2012] 2 SCR 345, retrieved on 2014-04-02 Bannerman, Sara. The Struggle for Canadian Copyright: Imperialism to Internationalism, 1842-1971. Vancouver: UBC, 2013. Print. "Digest: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada." The Lawyers Weekly. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. . Forcese, Craig. National Security Law: Canadian Practice in International Perspective. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2008. Print. Fitzpatrick, Meagan. "Supreme Court Ruling Scraps Royalty for Music Downloads."CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 12 July 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. . Goldstein, Paul, and P. Hugenholtz. International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. Hovenkamp, Herbert, Mark D. Janis, and Mark A. Lemley. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. New York: Aspen, 2002. Print. News, CBC. "Read the Supreme Court Copyright Rulings." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 12 July 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. . Shaw, Gillian. "Court Decision on Illegal Downloading in Canada Protects against ‘copyright Trolls’ but Not against Breaking the Law | Vancouver Sun." The Vancouver Sun. N.p., 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. .Strowel, Alain. Peer-to-peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2009. Print. "Supreme Court Judgments: Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada." SCC Cases (Lexum). N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. . Read More