BETWEEN

:

Plaintiffs

AD.

BETWEEN: DIS

QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT BETWEEN: PHILLIPE GUILBERT Plaintiff
VS.

and

SAY:
1.

2.

3.

thetermsof the airness hearing(the

I

4.

agaInst Classaction lawsuitsin the United States sametechnologyresultedin a settlement agreement, attached the affidavit of Cindy Cohn asExhibit 4 to Agreement"). The U.S. Settlement Agreementincludesseveral. protectionsgoverningSonyBMG's conductwith ProtectionSoftware"in the future,all of which have explicitly excludedfrom the Canadian Settlement A

G in respectof the y of which is .S. Settlement

5.

consumer to use of "Content deliberately and

6.

The absence theseprotectionsis purportedlyexp of swornby ChristineJ. Prudham, SonyBMG Canada, attached Exhibit "c" to the as Agreement.

by an affidavit Business Affairs of an Settlement

7.

In Paragraph to that affidavit, Ms. Prudhamstates 5 bestof my knowledge,infonnation andbelief, no authorityhascommenced inquiry into SONY B any SONY BMG Canada's of the Software." She use paragraph11 of the affidavit. Ms Prudhamalso su protectionswere agreed by SonyBMG in respo to actionsbasedon "unique US legislation" andthe containedin the U.S. Settlement Agreement.

0 date,andto the government anada concerning similar sentiment in

8.

CIPPICin the pastconsidered filing complaintswith authoritiesto address SonyBMG's conduct. complaintswith a numberof authorities,including

regulatory filing :y Commissioner

andproVIDe ial

'cesauthorities. U.S. Settlement

settlements.

9.

10.

11.

Agreement. 12. Canadians The absence of

comply with the ent. The

proposed Canadian Settlement Agreement potential I BMG's guineapigs.

Canadians Sony

13.

In paragraph10,Ms. Prudhamstates that SonyBM consumer protectionsarew8ITanted because they with Canada's internationalcopyright obligations."

-

not believethe ve incompatible

14.

Ms. Prudhamprovidesno basiswhatsoever this for reason: I am awareof no authorityor court that wo I note that the United Statesis a party to all internati andtreatiesto which Canada alsoa party, and yet is constrained accede theseprotectionsin the U.S. to to

ent, and for good rt this assertion. yrightconvention BMG did not feel ementAgreement. protections"may Ms. is currentlya ] in Canada," settlement approach the to

15.

Also in paragraph10,Ms. Prudhamstates that the prove incompatiblewith forthcomingfederalcopyri Prudhamgoeson to argue,in paragraphs to 16, I 12 "legal vacuumaroundTPMs [technological protecti. andthat incoIporatingthe consumer protectionsinto agreement would "amountto adoptingin Canada the 1996WIPO Treatieswithout giving the Canadian opportunity [to] decidewhat its policies will be on WIPO Treaties."

in light of the 1996

16.

Ms. Prudham providesno rationalbasiswhatsoever they are eachwithout merit.

assertions, and

17.

This actiondoesnot involve copyright law. Legal for technologicalprotectionmeasures irrelevantto is

ion (or its absence)

laintiffs' claimsin

actionraises copyright. 18. action settlement of legal claims a "legal vacuum" fu1to Canadians.

19.

"as an aspect of Ms fall underthe l)(a) of the

20.

to this action,this 'a) of the Federal jurisdiction over 'ght." Subedera!Court has ght ... at law relevantto the e Federal Courts

21.

A Commissioner etc.

I