P. 1
01 AUCCs Memorandum of Fact and Law (January 30, 2012)

01 AUCCs Memorandum of Fact and Law (January 30, 2012)

|Views: 95|Likes:
Published by hknopf
AUCC JR Memo for March 20 2012
AUCC JR Memo for March 20 2012

More info:

Published by: hknopf on Mar 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





inconsistent with the statutory context and purpose of the copyright licensing

provisions of the Act. A purposive interpretation of these provisions must take

into account the purposes of the Act as a whole. In Theberge v. Galerie d'Art du

Petit Champlain Inc. ("Theberge"), the Supreme Court of Canada described the

balance struck in the Act between the public interest in dissemination of works

and obtaining ajust reward for the creator, as follows:

Excessive contrdl by holders of copyrights and other forms of
intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public
domain to incorporate and embellish creative iunovation in the
long-term interests of society as a whole, or create practical



obstacles to proper utilization. This is reflected in the exceptions to
copyright infringement enumerated in ss. 29 to 32.2, which seek to
protect the public domain in traditional ways such as fair dealing
for the purpose of criticism or review and to add new protections to
reflect new technology, such as limited computer program
reproduction and "ephemeral recordings" in connection with live
performances.[30-32] (Emphasis added)

Theberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc., [2002) 2 SCR
336; 202 SCC 34, para 32, ABA, Tab 18

Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc. [2007) 3 SCR 20,
2007 SCC 37, paras 3 and 9, ABA, Tab 19

CCH Canadian Ltd. V. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004) 1
SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13, para 9, ABA, Tab 20


You're Reading a Free Preview

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