Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Intervener factum Access Copyright and Copibec, CCH case Supreme Court of Canada

Intervener factum Access Copyright and Copibec, CCH case Supreme Court of Canada

Ratings: (0)|Views: 69 |Likes:
Published by Ariel Katz

More info:

Published by: Ariel Katz on Mar 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/16/2012

pdf

text

original

 
BETWEEN:
AND:
Court File No, 29320
IN
THE
SUPREME
COURTOF
CANADA
(ON
APPEAL
FROM
THE FEDERAL
COURT
OF
APPEAL)
THE
LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal(Respondent)
CCH CANADIAN LIMITED
Respondent/
~ppellant
on cross-appeal(Appellant)
AND
BETWEEN:
AND:
THE
LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal(Respom?cnt)
THOMSON CANADA LIMITED c.o.b. asCARSWELL THOMSON PROFESSIONAL PUBLISHING
Respondent/ Appellant on cross-appeal(Appellant)
AND
BETWEEN:
AND:
THE
LAW SOCIETY
OF
UPPER CANADA
Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal(Respondent)
CANADA LAW BOOK INC.
Respondent/Appellant
on
cross-appeal(Appellant)
FILED
(YI
)
 
II
I
III
aacc
0
c
0
000
CONTENTS
PART
1-
FACTS ...........................................................................•..•..•.•......••.•..•.••.••••••••
1
PART 11-QUESTIONS
IN
ISSUE ..................................................................................
1
PART Ill • ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
1-
The
l:m·
Society Authorized
Infringement
b)·
Providing Free-standing Photocopiers
in
the
Great
L.ibrary .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
A.
The Fcdcml
Court
of
Appeal Decision
with
rt.!spcct
to
the
meaning
of
the words "to authorize"
is
in
accordance
with
previous
authoritil.!s on
th<~t
question.............. . .................................................. 2
i)
The meaning
of"to
authorizt;"........................ ............... . .................................................. 2
ii)
Th~
constituent clements of
an
··nuthorization" ........................................................................................ 3
::::;.
To
control
the
usc
of
the means
to
infringe ................................................................................................ 3
::::;.
To
"sanction, approve
or
countenance'"
the
infringement ........................................................................... 4
B.
The
Federal Court of
Appeal
Decision
with
respect
to
the
meaning
of
he
words
•·to
authorize"
is
in
accordance
with
the
jurisprudence emanating
from
countries
thathave
a
legal
tradition similar
to
Canada's .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
C.
The
Federal Court
of
Appeal
correctly applied
the
law
respecting
the
concept
of"to
authorize"
to
thefacts
of
the
present case ....................................................................................................................................
10i)
The
Law
Society controlled
the
entire environment
for
infringing ..........................................................
10
ii)
The Law
Society "sanctioned, approved or countenanced"
the
use
of
the free-standingphotocopiers
to
make
illegal reproductions
of
works
protected
by
copyright .................................................... II
iii)
The
Law
Society
did not
take reasonable or effective precaution against infringement
of
copyright ............................................................................................................................................................
II
D.
Section 30.3
of
he
Act
would
not
have been
enacted
in
1997
if
the
availability
of
free-standingphotocopiers
in
a library could
in
no
event give rise
to
the
library's liability
for
copyright infringement .............. l2
 
IIIIIII
a
a
c
0
c
jj
II·
The Oblalnlng
of
Pholocopy Licences from
CollccU•·c
Soclclles Con•lllulcs an AllerJoalh·clolnfrlngementnnd Should
be
Considered
In
:on)·
Anol)·sis of lhe f:oir
J>eallng
J>efen<c
.......................................
J4
A.
Even
in
the
Unircd
Slates.
the
;wailability
of
licences
is
taken
into
account
in
the
determination
of
the
"fairness"
of a
use
........................................................... , ...........................................................................
,.
...
14
i)
The U.S.
Copyright Act
recognizes
that
the
effect
of
the
use
upon
the
potential market
for
or
value
of
the
work
is
a
rclev<:~nt
factor
in
the
determin<ttion
of"fair use" ............................................................ l4
ii)
u.S. doctrinal
and
jurisprudential authorities
ore
to
the
effect that
the
availability
of
a licenceshould
be
considered
in
an
analysis
of
he fair
usc
defence ...............................................................................
15
B.
The availability
of
copyright licences
is
relevant
to
a dctcnninmion of··fair dealing"'
in
Canada ................
17
PART
IV-
CONCLUSION AND ORDER SOUGHT.. .................................................... 18PART
V-
AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................
20

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->