recentpopularlog in

shadowspar : copyright   66

Rogers Executive Calls on Canadian Government to Shut Down VPNs - Michael Geist
RT @mgeist: Rogers executive thinks solution for Canadians accessing US Netflix for the Cdn govt to block VPN use
mgeist  rogers  internetaccess  encryption  copyright 
february 2015 by shadowspar
Michael Geist - Access Copyright Urges Copyright Board to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Fair Dealing
RT @mgeist: Access Copyright Urges Copyright Board to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Fair Dealing
copyright  mgeist  accessibility 
april 2014 by shadowspar
Michael Geist - University of Toronto, Western Provide Notice to Access Copyright That They Will Not Extend Licence
RT @mgeist: University of Toronto, Western Provide Notice to Access Copyright That They Will Not Extend Licence
accesscopyright  copyright 
june 2013 by shadowspar
Fair Dealing, Copyright, and the Haggadah | Ariel Katz
Great post drawing on the "Four Sons" story from the Passover Haggadah, touching not only on copyright, but how society has a duty to educate everyone: people of greater or lesser ability; people of greater or lesser inclination; not just those who ask for it, but even those who have no idea what questions to ask.
education  arielkatz  copyright  judaism  passover  parable 
may 2013 by shadowspar
Derek Khanna copyright memo
Shockingly sensible suggestions for copyright reform that the GOP quickly pulled offline and disavowed.
copyright  derekkhanna  memo  uspoli 
november 2012 by shadowspar
Copyright: The New Mercantilism | Techdirt
RT @howardknopf: Copyright: The New Mercantilism | Techdirt
copyright  mercantilism 
october 2012 by shadowspar
Jen Myers | Why I Want You To Copy My Writing
RT @antiheroine: ★ Why I want you to copy my writing:
copyright  writing  creativity  sharing 
august 2012 by shadowspar
Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada
Individual works in a movie soundtrack do not attract separate tariffs when not isolated from the entire cinematic work.
scoc  copyright  precedent 
july 2012 by shadowspar
Rogers. v. SOCAN
Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada

An individual download is not a "communication to the public"; however, a service allowing music streaming to indiscriminate individuals on the internet does constitute "communicating works to the public via telecommunication".
copyright  scoc  precedent 
july 2012 by shadowspar
ESA v. SOCAN
Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada

Clarifiying the "communicating to the public via telecommunication" right: just because something is sent over the internet doesn't make it a telecommunication to the public. In this case (sale of a video game) it's merely the delivery method for a reproduction (and the same reproduction right and tariff applies as if the game with the embedded music were sold off the shelf in a store).

"SOCAN has never been able to charge [communicating] royalties for copies of video games stored on cartridges or discs, and bought in a store or shipped by mail. Yet it argues that identical copies of the games sold and delivered over the Internet are subject to both a fee for reproducing the work and a fee for communicating the work. The principle of technological neutrality requires that, absent evidence of Parliamentary intent to the contrary, we interpret the Copyright Act in a way that avoids imposing an additional layer of protections and fees based solely on the method of delivery of the work to the end user. To do otherwise would effectively impose a gratuitous cost for the use of more efficient, Internet-based technologies."
copyright  precedent  scoc 
july 2012 by shadowspar
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Compo Co. Ltd. v. Blue Crest Music et al.
portability of concepts of US copyright law into Canada, amongst other issues
copyright  scoc 
july 2012 by shadowspar
Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc.
This is the case where the SCoC ruled that transferring artworks from (eg) paper to canvas didn't constitute an infringement of copyright if it destroyed the original in the process, because no copy was in fact created.

Also, one of the landmark decisions so far as balancing the rights of the public vs the rights of authors instead of allowing authors more complete control over how their works were used.
scoc  precedent  copyright 
july 2012 by shadowspar
SOCAN v. Bell Canada
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36

The "song previews" case. Held: 30-90sec song previews are fair dealing.
copyright  precedent  scoc 
july 2012 by shadowspar
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada
CCH sets out the test for fair dealing and establishes a boatload of other copyright-related precedents.

The test for fair dealing: one must examine:

1) The purpose of the dealing (either research or private study, as provided by the Copyright Act)
2) Whether the dealing is 'fair', by examining the six factors:
1. The purpose of the dealing
2. The character of the dealing
3. The amount of the dealing
4. Alternatives to the dealing
5. The nature of the work
6. The effect of the dealing on the work

* "'Research' must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts."
* Libraries do not infringe copyright or authorize copyright infringement merely by providing photocopiers to their patrons
* "Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law."
* "The fax transmission of a single copy to a single individual is not a communication to the public. This said, a series of repeated fax transmissions of the same work to numerous different recipients might constitute communication to the public in infringement of copyright."
scoc  copyright  precedent 
july 2012 by shadowspar
Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright
Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37

The textbook copying case. When looking at the CCH test for fair dealing, the purpose of the dealing must be assessed from the perspective of the ultimate user (the student) and not any interim parties (like the teacher doing the copying).

This is the case with the wonderful quote from The Hon. Madam Justice Abella: "With respect, the word “private” in “private study” should not be understood as requiring users to view copyrighted works in splendid isolation."
copyright  scoc  precedent 
july 2012 by shadowspar

Copy this bookmark:





to read