CIPPIC at the Supreme Court of Canada

Next Tuesday, CIPPIC will make oral arguments in the "Copyright Pentalogy", a set of five copyright case that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear from December 6-7.  These cases are likely to have a major impact on the scope of your fair dealing rights, as well as on how much you will pay in the future for online music, videos, and video games.  You can watch CIPPIC's oral arguments online on Tuesday at the Supreme Court of Canada's live webcast.

The Supreme Court already granted CIPPIC leave to make written submissions on these important issues. CIPPIC provided the Court with advice in the following factums:

• SOCAN v. Bell Factum (No. 33800): CIPPIC argues that the Chartervalues of freedom of expression ought to inform copyright law, which, at its root, is about protecting and balancing the rights involved in expressive and artistic activities.  Properly viewed in this light, consumer research through the use of music previews constitutes fair dealing.
• Alberta v. Access Copyright Factum (No. 33888): CIPPIC reinforces the importance of recognizing the overlap between Chartervalues of freedom of expression and copyright law, this time in the context of teachers copying fair amounts of works to instruct their students.
• ESA v. SOCAN (No. 33921) & Rogers v. SOCAN (No. 33922):CIPPIC explains the serious adverse consequences of the Federal Court of Appeal and Copyright Board's decision to treat online music sales differently from in-store CD sales.  By oddly interpreting a download as a "communication to the public by telecommunication", the court below introduced an inefficient double-compensation scheme.
• Re:Sound v. MPTAC (No. 34210): CIPPIC emphasizes, once again, that stacking multiple layers of royalties only creates inefficiencies that will raise consumer prices and stifle innovation.  Especially in the context of new media, where ordinary users increasingly participate to become creators, it is more important than ever to maintain the efficient compensation scheme that Parliament intended for copyright.