1

Canada, China and Copyright Law 

November 15th, 2012Los Angeles, California

FMC Presents:

2

Why Canada Engages with China?Presented by: V. PETER HARDER

3

Global DemographyThe emerging markets will outgrow the mature

economies dramatically

1. China2. Soviet Union3. India4. USA5. Japan6. Indonesia7. Germany8. Brazil9. United Kingdom10. Italy11. France12. East Pakistan

■ Mature Economies

1950

4

Global DemographyThe emerging markets will outgrow the mature

economies dramatically

1. China2. India3. USA4. Indonesia5. Brazil6. Russian Federation7. Pakistan8. Bangladesh9. Japan10. Nigeria11. Mexico12. Germany

■ Mature Economies

2000

5

Global DemographyThe emerging markets will outgrow the mature

economies dramatically

1. India2. China3. USA4. Pakistan5. Indonesia6. Nigeria7. Bangladesh8. Brazil9. Congo10. Ethiopia11. Mexico12. Philippines

■ Mature Economies

2050

If demography is destiny, global leadership may pass from the

“Matures Economies” to the “Emerging Markets” …

6

Global Demography

US-/-CAN-/-UK-/-FR-/-GER-/-ITALY-/-JAPAN

In many aging countries, the size of the working age population will shrink dramatically

7

China’s sustained, rapid growth is an unprecedented achievement

8

China GDP in 2009 by province: a union of leading developing countries

9

China GDP in 2020 by provinces (projected): a union of second‐tier developed and top‐tier developing countries

10

China in the BRIC

11

12

2012: A Landmark Year for Copyright in Canada

The Copyright Modernization Act and Supreme Court of Canada Decisions

Presented by:Robert D. McDonald and Margot Patterson

13

BILL C ‐ 11

•An Act to amend the Copyright Act (also known as the Copyright Modernization Act) (“CMA”)

• Introduced September 29, 2011•Received royal assent – June 29, 2012•Provisions will be entered into force on a date to be fixed by Order in Council

14

Purpose of Copyright Modernization Act

• Updating legislation to deal with new technology• Aligning Canada’s legislation with international treaties• Clarify Internet Service Provider liability• Permit businesses, educators, students and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form

• Revise legislative provisions to be technology neutral• No substantial amendments since 1997

15

Anti‐Circumvention Provisions  (s.41 ‐ 41.27)

• Circumvention of technological protection measures (“TPM’s”) used by rights holders to secure and control their digital content, is prohibited 

• TPM (or digital lock) circumvention is considered copyright infringement (passwords, encryption software, access codes)

• Persons who manufacture, market or distribute TPM circumvention tools such as digital lock cracking software, or who set up services to enable infringement, will be subject to civil and criminal sanctions

• Exception for unlocking cell phones (“radio apparatus”)• These provisions apply to all TPM circumvention, even for personal use

16

Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) (s.31.1)• No infringement simply by providing the means for telecommunication and reproduction

• The CMA establishes a “notice and notice” scheme for ISP’s and search engines (s. 41.25 – 41.27)

• ISP’s and search engines will have only limited liability for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers

• “Notice and Notice”: ISP’s and search engines will have to forward any notices received of claimed infringement to the alleged infringer and maintain records relating to the alleged infringer’s identity

• It is now copyright infringement to provide a service over the internet or otherwise that is designed to enable acts of copyright infringement

17

Statutory Damages (s. 38.1)

• The previous Copyright Act allowed a copyright owner to seek statutory damages between $500.00 and $20,000.00 for each work infringed

• The CMA reduces the statutory damages to a range of between $100.00 and $5,000.00 where the copyright infringement is relating to an individual who has infringed copyright for private use (one time payment for ALL infringements)

• Statutory damages for infringement for commercial purposes are still between $500.00 and $20,000.00 for each work infringed.

18

Fair Dealing (s.29)

•Fair dealing has always been an exception under theCopyright Act: research, private study, criticism,review

•Permitted purposes expanded under the CMA toinclude education, parody and satire

•Dealings with works must still be considered “fair”– 6‐step test: purpose, character, and amount of the dealing;alternatives to the dealing; nature of the work; and effectof the dealing on the work.

19

User Generated Content (YouTube clause s. 29.21)

•Users now permitted to create their own content bycombining or using existing copyright material,provided certain conditions are met

•The purpose of the user generated content must benon‐commercial, the source must be mentioned(where reasonable), and there must not be anysubstantial adverse impact on the copyright holder’sexploitation of the work

• Individual must have reasonable grounds to believethe source material was not infringing copyright

20

Copying for Private Purposes

• Format shifting (s. 29.22) time shifting, (s. 29.23) and backupcopies (s. 29.24)

• Under the previous Copyright Act, format shifting and timeshifting were unlawful, and constituted copyright infringement

• The CMA makes it lawful to make copies for private purposes• The exception is only available if the source material is notinfringing, it was legally obtained, and a TPM has not beencircumvented

• Cannot copy borrowed or rented works, cannot give away, sellor rent the copy

21

Photographers (s. 10 and s. 13(2) repealed)

•Under the old Copyright Act, the person who commissioned a photograph was considered the original owner of copyright 

•Under the CMA, the photographer will become the first owner of copyright in their photographs, regardless of whether or not the works were commissioned 

• Individuals who commissioned works will have rights of personal and non‐commercial use unless there is an agreement to the contrary

22

Other Amendments• New Moral Rights for Performers (s. 17.1 and 17.2)

– used to only exist for authors• New Making Available and Distribution Rights (s. 15 and s. 18)

– Making works and performer’s performances available by telecommunication and distribution

• Removal or alteration of Rights Management Information (RMI) prohibited (s. 41.22)

– ie. water marks and notices• New Educational Institution exceptions (s. 29.4 and s. 30.1)

– Use of publicly available internet materials, digital delivery of course materials

• Review of CMA every 5 years (s. 92)

23

Supreme Court Pentalogy 20121. Downloads don’t infringe 

(Entertainment Software Association v. SOCAN)2. Online streams do infringe 

(Rogers Communications v. SOCAN)3. “Sound recording” excludes film and TV soundtracks 

(Re:Sound v. MPTAC)4. Teachers’ photocopies for students “fair dealing” 

(Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright)5. Online music previews “fair dealing”                 

(SOCAN v. Bell Canada)

24

Conclusion

•The Copyright Modernization Act represents a significant revision to existing Canadian copyright legislation

•The CMA attempts to balance the rights of both creators and users, brings Canada’s legislative regime more in line with international standards, makes Canada’s copyright legislation technologically neutral, and addresses the realities of new technologies on the protection and enforcement of copyright

The preceding presentation contains examples of the kinds of issues companies dealing with Copyright Law could face. If you are faced with one of these issues, please retain professional assistance as each situation 

is unique.

Thank You!

Gordon Esau, PartnerFraser Milner Casgrain LLP | www.fmc‐law.comT 604 443 7105 | F 604 683 5214E gordon.esau@fmc‐law.com

Technology, Media and Entertainment Practice Group