Date: 20041021
Docket: T-337-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1454
BETWEEN:
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORPORATION, TRISTAR PICTURES, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY
FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNITED ARTISTS PICTURES, INC.,
UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS,
LLLP, WARNER BROS., a division of TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
Plaintiffs
and
THOMAS FRANKL carrying on business as
SIGNAL SOLUTIONS
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is a motion by the plaintiffs for summary judgment against the defendant Thomas Frankl carrying on business as "Signal Solutions". The plaintiffs seek the following:
1. Summary judgment against the defendant for:
a) a declaration that the plaintiffs are the holders of valid Canadian copyrights in certain motion pictures and television productions;
b) a declaration that the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use throughout Canada of the copyrights in respect of the motion pictures and television productions more particularly described in the motion record;
c) a declaration that the defendant's unauthorized importation, manufacture, distribution, assembly, modification, lease, offering for lease, sale, offering for sale, operating or possessing equipment or devices of any kind whatsoever (or any component thereof) designed or intended to be used directly or indirectly to decode or to facilitate decoding of encrypted radiocommunications, including subscription programming signals (as those terms are defined in the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2), by which the plaintiffs' intellectual properties are communicated to the public (the "Secured Broadcast Signals") without the authorization of the plaintiffs and those entities authorized by the plaintiffs to authorize decoding of the Secured Broadcast Signals (the "Authorized Distributor") constitutes:
i) a violation of the Radiocommunication Act and the plaintiffs' rights thereunder;
ii) an infringement of the plaintiffs'copyright rights in the plaintiffs'intellectual properties; and
iii) a conversion of the plaintiffs'intellectual properties;
d) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant (including his servants, employees, agents, representatives, affiliated companies and subsidiaries as may be applicable) from, directly or indirectly, importing, manufacturing, distributing, assembling, modifying, leasing, offering for lease, selling, offering for sale, operating or possessing unauthorized devices of any kind whatsoever (or any component thereof) designed or intended to be used directly or indirectly to decode or facilitate the decoding of Secured Broadcast Signals without the authorization of the Authorized Distributor thereof;
e) a permanent injunction against the defendant (including his servants, employees, agents, representatives, affiliated companies and subsidiaries as may be applicable) from, directly or indirectly, decoding Secured Broadcast Signals otherwise than under and in accordance with authorization from the Authorized Distributor of the Secured Broadcast Signals;
f) a permanent injunction against the defendant (including his servants, employees, agents, representatives, affiliated companies and subsidiaries as may be applicable) from, directly or indirectly, providing equipment or a device to any person to enable such person to subscribe for, receive or decode Secured Broadcast Signals originating in any country other than Canada from an entity not authorized by way of license from the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommnunications Commission ("CRTC") to distribute such Secured Broadcast Signals in Canada;
g) a permanent injunction against the defendant (including his servants, employees, agents, representatives, affiliated companies and subsidiaries as may be applicable) from advising, or offering advice or information, to any person that would, could or will directly or indirectly encourage, assist, aid or abet any person in Canada to decode Secured Broadcast Signals without the authorization of the Authorized Distributor;
h) an Order declaring that each of the plaintiffs is entitled to damages arising from the defendant's contravention of the Radiocommunication Act and a further Order directing a reference before a Prothonotary or other person suitable to the Court, to determine the amount of damages payable by the defendant to each of the plaintiffs; and
i) an Order declaring that each plaintiff is entitled to damages and an accounting of the defendant's profits arising from the infringement or the deemed infringement by the defendant of the registered copyrights and a further Order directing a reference before a Prothonotary or other person suitable to the Court, to determine the amount of damages payable by the defendant to each of the plaintiffs and the defendant's profits payable to each of the plaintiffs; and
j) in the alternative to the relief requested in subparagraphs (h) and (i), minimum damages to each plaintiff in the amount of $25,000.00;
2. Costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis together with any applicable Goods and Services Tax;
3. In the alternative to the relief requested in subparagraph 1(j), an Order declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and an accounting of the defendant's profits arising from the infringement by the defendant of the plaintiffs' copyright rights and a further Order directing a reference before a Prothonotary or other person suitable to the Court, to determine the amount of damages payable to the plaintiffs and the defendant's profits payable to the plaintiff; and
4. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deems just.
BACKGROUND
[2] The plaintiffs are corporations, all duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with principal offices in the State of California. The plaintiffs either directly or through their affiliates or subsidiaries, among other things, produce and/or distribute copyrighted motion pictures (the "plaintiffs' productions").
[3] At all material times, the plaintiffs have been the owners, co-owners, assignees or licensees of all or certain rights, title and interest in and to the copyrights, characters and other distinctive elements and artwork in and associated with the names, marks, logos, characters, scenes, likenesses, symbols, symbolic designs and personalities from and associated with the plaintiffs productions.
[4] Each of the plaintiffs authorizes the reproduction, distribution and public performance of their respective rights in Canada, by separately entering into agreements with Canadian entities licensed by the CRTC to provide satellite services on a "pay-per-view" or "pay TV" basis to their paying subscribers. Similar agreements between the individual plaintiffs with "direct to home" satellite service providers such as "DirecTV" have been entered into in the United States.
[5] Pay-per-view licensing allows individual subscribers to view individual copyrighted motion pictures on the payment of a separate fee over and above the subscriber's monthly subscription. The revenues that each of the plaintiffs receives from its cable and satellite and pay-per-view licenses are proportional to the number of pay-per-view purchases made by subscribers. Pay-per-view programming is transmitted by Secured Broadcast Signals, which are encrypted to allow only authorized subscribers who have paid for the service to view the programming.
[6] Pay TV licensing allows individual subscribers to view enhanced or premium programming on one or a number of specialty channels for a fee over and above the basic programming offered. The revenues that each of the plaintiffs receives from pay TV licensing are proportional to the number of subscribers paying for the enhanced services. Like pay-per-view, pay TV programming is transmitted by Secured Broadcast Signals, which are encrypted to allow only authorized subscribers who have paid for the service to view the programming.
[7] Means have been developed to decode encrypted Secured Broadcast Signals, however. For example, in the U.S., DirecTV utilizes "smart cards" in conjunction with circuitry built into the receiver that decodes Secured Broadcast signals. These smart cards have been pirated and sold to allow non-subscribers to view Secured Broadcast Signals illegally. Smart cards are also reprogrammed to allow subscribers to view Secured Broadcast Signals for which he or she has not properly subscribed. The end result is the same: individuals can use pirated or reprogrammed smart cards to access all of the Secured Broadcast Signals offered by a satellite system without authorization or payment.
[8] "Bell ExpressVu" and "Star Choice" are the only two entities to which the CRTC has provided broadcast licenses to deliver direct to home digital satellite services within Canada. Nevertheless, persons and entities are offering for sale, selling, arranging installation of and installing digital satellite systems to receive decoded Secured Broadcast Signals of American broadcasters not licensed by the CRTC to broadcast in Canada and who have not acquired from the copyright holder, including the plaintiffs, the program rights required to authorize the exhibition of Secured Broadcast Signals at any location in Canada. Pirate smart cards are being offered for sale and sold to access these illegal American systems.
[9] None of the plaintiffs or their authorized licensees or their authorized satellite service providers has authorized, expressly or impliedly, the unlawful viewing of the Secured Broadcast Signals or the provision of the means for unlawful viewing of such signals.
[10] The defendant is an individual residing at 125 de Nantes, Ste-Julie, Québec.
[11] In March 2000, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") executed a search warrant on the home of the defendant. The RCMP seized 51 H cards, one laptop computer, one programmer and three receivers. On June 27, 2000, the RCMP laid five charges under the Radiocommunication Act. On July 21, 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty to five charges under s. 10(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act.
[12] The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has engaged on an ongoing basis since at least March 2000, for profit, in the manufacture, sale and modification of pirate smart cards for DirecTV satellite systems that permit unlawful viewing of Secured Broadcast Signals.
[13] The plaintiffs further allege that subsequent to the charges laid against him by the RCMP in June 2000, the defendant continued to engage in this unlawful conduct, contrary to the provisions of the Radiocommunication Act, and resulting in the infringement and conversion of the plaintiffs' intellectual properties.
[14] The plaintiffs submit that they have suffered and continue to suffer damages while the defendant has made a profit. The defendant's conduct, they allege, has caused serious irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the valuable reputation associated with their intellectual properties.
[15] The defendant has failed to file any evidence or any submissions in respect of this motion.
ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment Principles
[16] This Court in Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd., [1996] 2 F.C. 853 (T.D.) at paragraph 8, set out the following general principles with respect to summary judgment:
1. The purpose of the provisions is to allow the Court to summarily dispense with cases which ought not proceed to trial because there I s no genuine issue to be tried (Old Fish Market Restaurants Ltd. v. 1000357 Ontario Inc., et al, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1631).
2. There is no determinative test (Feoso Oil ltd. v. Sarla (The)) but Stone J.A. seems to have adopted the reasons of Henry J. in Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie. It is not whether a party cannot possible succeed at trial, it is whether the case is so doubtful that it does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial;
3. Each case should be interpreted in reference to its own contextual framework (Blyth, [1994] F.C.J. No. 560, and Feoso);
4. Provincial practice rules (espcially Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, [R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194]) can aid in interpretation (Feoso and Collie, [1996] f.c.j. No. 193);
5. This Court may determine questions of fact and law on the motion for summary judgment if this can be done on the material before the Court (this is broder than Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure) (Patrick, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1216);
6. On the whole of the evidence, summary judgment cannot be granted if the necessary facts cannot be found or if it would be unjust to do so (Pallman, [1995] F.C.J. No. 898, and Sears, [1996] F.C.J. No. 51);
7. In the case of a serious issue with respect to credibility, the case should go to trial because the parties should be cross-examined before the trial judge (Forde, [1995] F.C.J. No. 48, and Sears). The mere existence of apparent conflict in the evidence does not preclude summary judgment; the court should take a "hard look" at the merits and decide if there are issues of credibility to be resolved (Stokes, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1547).
[17] These principles have been reaffirmed on numerous occasions (see for e.g., Odyssey Television Network Inc. v. Triantafillos TT Triantafillou, [2004] F.C.J. No. 632 (F.C.)(QL), 2004 FC 532; ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., [2001] F.C.J. No. 400 (F.C.A.)(QL), 2001 FCA 11).
[18] As explained by Justice O'Keefe in Odyssey Television, supra the onus is on both parties "to put their best foot forward":
¶ 33 With respect to summary judgment, I stated in Inhesion Industrial Co. v. Anglo Canadian Mercantile Co., [2000] F.C.J. No. 491 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 19:
Upon a motion for summary judgment, both parties must file their best evidence. The moving party must of course lead evidence which it believes will convince the Court that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment in its favour. This issue was discussed by Justice Evans in F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. v. S.F. Concrete Technology, Inc. (8 April 1999), Court File No. T-335-97 (F.C.T.D.) [reported 1 C.P.R. (4th) 88, at p. 92]:
Accordingly, the respondent has an evidential burden to discharge in showing that there is a genuine issue for trial: Feoso Oil Ltd. v. "Sarla" (The), [1995] 3 F.C. 68 (F.C.A.) 81-82. However, this does not detract from the principle that the moving party has the legal onus of establishing the facts necessary to obtain summary judgment: Ruhl Estate v. Mannesmann Kienzle GmbH (1997), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 190 (F.C.T.D.) 200; Kirkbi AG. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. (F.C.T.D.; T-2799-96; June 23, 1998) [reported 81 C.P.R. (3d) 289]. Thus, both parties are required to "put their best foot forward" so that the motions judge can determine whether there is an issue that should go to trial: Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 515 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) 529-530.
Is there a genuine issue re: a violation of the Radiocommunication Act ?
[19] Subsection 18(3) of the Radiocommunication Act provides that where a person was convicted for, among other things, importing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, modifying, operating or possessing any device that enables unauthorized decryption of a Secured Broadcast Signal, such conviction is proof, absent evidence to the contrary, of the wrongful conduct at issue in a civil proceeding.
[20] In the present case, the defendant was charged with five offences under paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act in June 2000. The defendant purported to rely upon earlier court decisions that held that decoding encrypted signals originating outside of Canada did not contravene the legislation. However, following the Supreme Court of Canada's determination in April 2002 that the "decoding of all encrypted signals, regardless of their origin", that is, in Canada or abroad, was prohibited by the legislation (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559), the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges laid against him.
[21] While such a guilty plea is not necessarily determinative of civil liability (Prevost v. Canada (Employment & Immigration Commission), [1980] F.C.J. No. 1003 (F.C.T.D.)(QL)), there is no evidence to the contrary before this Court - the defendant has not filed any evidence or made any submissions in opposition of this motion.
[22] Moreover, the plaintiffs provide affidavit evidence that the defendant has continued to engage in conduct contrary to the Radiocommunication Act subsequent to the charges laid by the RCMP, and the Bell ExpressVu, supra ruling. Specifically, on September 11, 2002, Gary Osmond, the National Coordinator of the Anti-Piracy Program, attended at the defendant's residence, and after making inquiries, purchased a programmed card from the defendant that enabled him to access DirecTV without paying for it.
[23] Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to the Radiocommunication Act.
Is there a genuine issue re: infringement under the Copyright Act ?
[24] I accept that the plaintiffs have copyright rights in the works described collectively as the plaintiffs' productions.
[25] To establish copyright infringement pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant, by his actions, authorized others to reproduce, distribute and/or publicly perform their copyrighted works.
[26] Authorization is largely a fact-driven inquiry. The Supreme Court of Canada recently summarized what must be shown to demonstrate authorization in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339:
38 "Authorize" means to "sanction, approve and countenance": [1953] 2 S.C.R. 182">Muzak Corp. v. Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Ltd., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 182, at p. 193; De Tervagne v. Beloeil (Town), [1993] 3 F.C. 227 (T.D.). Countenance in the context of authorizing copyright infringement must be understood in its strongest dictionary meaning, namely, "[g]ive approval to; sanction, permit; favour, encourage": see The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), vol. 1, at p. 526. Authorization is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each particular case and can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, including a sufficient degree of indifference: CBS Inc. v. Ames Records & Tapes Ltd., [1981] 2 All E.R. 812 (Ch. D.), at pp. 823-24. However, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law: Muzak, supra. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement: Muzak,supra; De Tervagne, supra; see also J. S. McKeown, Fox Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs (4th ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 21-104, and P. D. Hitchcock, "Home Copying and Authorization" (1983), 67 C.P.R. (2d) 17, at pp. 29-33.
[27] In the case at bar, the affidavit evidence, which is uncontradicted, demonstrates that the defendant imported, manufactured, distributed, modified, programmed, reprogrammed, leased, offered for lease, sold and offered for sale, equipment specifically designed to defeat DirecTV's encryption of Secured Broadcast Signals, thereby enabling the unauthorized receipt and clear viewing of the Secured Broadcast Signals, contrary to the plaintiffs' rights in the copyrighted works.
[28] Consequently, I find that the defendant authorized others to reproduce the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. There is no genuine issue for trial in relation to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.
Remedies
[29] Under the provisions of the Radiocommunication Act, specifically subsection 18(1), a copyright owner whose rights are violated is entitled "damages¼or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate".
[30] Under section 34 of the Copyright Act, the owner of the copyright is entitled to "all remedies by way of an injunction, damages, accounts, delivery up and otherwise that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right."
[31] The plaintiffs have requested several forms of relief in this motion for summary judgment, including both damages and permanent injunctions against the defendant.
[32] The motion for summary judgment is granted insofar as the injunctive relief is concerned. However, I have decided to refer the determination of the amount of damages payable by the defendant to each of the plaintiffs and the defendant's profits payable to each of the plaintiffs to a Prothonotary or other person suitable to the Court.
[33] An Order will be issued accordingly. Costs to be assessed under Column 5 of Tariff B.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge
Montréal, Quebec
October 21, 2004
ANNEX "A"
The relevant sections of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, S.O.R./98-106, state as follows:
| 3. These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.
[...]
213. (1) A plaintiff may, after the defendant has filed a defence, or earlier with leave of the Court, and at any time before the time and place for trial are fixed, bring a motion for summary judgment on all or part of the claim set out in the statement of claim.
[...]
214. (1) A party may bring a motion for summary judgment in an action by serving and filing a notice of motion and motion record at least 20 days before the day set out in the notice for the hearing of the motion.
(2) A party served with a motion for summary judgment shall serve and file a respondent's motion record not later than 10 days before the day set out in the notice of motion for the hearing of the motion.
215. A response to a motion for summary judgment shall not rest merely on allegations or denials of the pleadings of the moving party, but must set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
216. (1) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence, the Court shall grant summary judgment accordingly.
(2) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that the only genuine issue is
(a) the amount to which the moving party is entitled, the Court may order a trial of that issue or grant summary judgment with a reference under rule 153 to determine the amount; or
(b) a question of law, the Court may determine the question and grant summary judgment accordingly.
(3) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court decides that there is a genuine issue with respect to a claim or defence, the Court may nevertheless grant summary judgment in favour of any party, either on an issue or generally, if the Court is able on the whole of the evidence to find the facts necessary to decide the questions of fact and law.
(4) Where a motion for summary judgment is dismissed in whole or in part, the Court may order the action, or the issues in the action not disposed of by summary judgment, to proceed to trial in the usual way or order that the action be conducted as a specially managed proceeding.
217. A plaintiff who obtains summary judgment under these Rules may proceed against the same defendant for any other relief and against any other defendant for the same or any other relief.
218. Where summary judgment is refused or is granted only in part, the Court may make an order specifying which material facts are not in dispute and defining the issues to be tried, including an order
(a) for payment into court of all or part of the claim;
(b) for security for costs; or
(c) limiting the nature and scope of the examination for discovery to matters not covered by the affidavits filed on the motion for summary judgment or by any cross-examination on them and providing for their use at trial in the same manner as an examination for discovery.
219. In making an order for summary judgment, the Court may order that enforcement of the summary judgment be stayed pending the determination of any other issue in the action or in a counterclaim or third party claim.
|
|
3. Les présentes règles sont interprétées et appliquées de façon à permettre d'apporter une solution au litige qui soit juste et la plus expéditive et économique possible.
[...]
213. (1) Le demandeur peut, après le dépôt de la défense du défendeur - ou avant si la Cour l'autorise - et avant que l'heure, la date et le lieu de l'instruction soient fixés, présenter une requête pour obtenir un jugement sommaire sur tout ou partie de la réclamation contenue dans la déclaration.
[...]
214. (1) Toute partie peut présenter une requête pour obtenir un jugement sommaire dans une action en signifiant et en déposant un avis de requête et un dossier de requête au moins 20 jours avant la date de l'audition de la requête indiquée dans l'avis.
(2) La partie qui reçoit signification d'une requête en jugement sommaire signifie et dépose un dossier de réponse au moins 10 jours avant la date de l'audition de la requête indiquée dans l'avis de requête.
215. La réponse à une requête en jugement sommaire ne peut être fondée uniquement sur les allégations ou les dénégations contenues dans les actes de procédure déposés par le requérant. Elle doit plutôt énoncer les faits précis démontrant l'existence d'une véritable question litigieuse.
216. (1) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour est convaincue qu'il n'existe pas de véritable question litigieuse quant à une déclaration ou à une défense, elle rend un jugement sommaire en conséquence.
(2) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour est convaincue que la seule véritable question litigieuse est :
a) le montant auquel le requérant a droit, elle peut ordonner l'instruction de la question ou rendre un jugement sommaire assorti d'un renvoi pour détermination du montant conformément à la règle 153;
b) un point de droit, elle peut statuer sur celui-ci et rendre un jugement sommaire en conséquence.
(3) Lorsque, par suite d'une requête en jugement sommaire, la Cour conclut qu'il existe une véritable question litigieuse à l'égard d'une déclaration ou d'une défense, elle peut néanmoins rendre un jugement sommaire en faveur d'une partie, soit sur une question particulière, soit de façon générale, si elle parvient à partir de l'ensemble de la preuve à dégager les faits nécessaires pour trancher les questions de fait et de droit.
(4) Lorsque la requête en jugement sommaire est rejetée en tout ou en partie, la Cour peut ordonner que l'action ou les questions litigieuses qui ne sont pas tranchées par le jugement sommaire soient instruites de la manière habituelle ou elle peut ordonner la tenue d'une instance à gestion spéciale.
217. Le demandeur qui obtient un jugement sommaire aux termes des présentes règles peut poursuivre le même défendeur pour une autre réparation ou poursuivre tout autre défendeur pour la même ou une autre réparation.
218. Lorsqu'un jugement sommaire est refusé ou n'est accordé qu'en partie, la Cour peut, par ordonnance, préciser les faits substantiels qui ne sont pas en litige et déterminer les questions qui doivent être instruites, ainsi que :
a) ordonner la consignation à la Cour d'une somme d'argent représentant la totalité ou une partie de la réclamation;
b) ordonner la remise d'un cautionnement pour dépens;
c) limiter la nature et l'étendue de l'interrogatoire préalable aux questions non visées par les affidavits déposés à l'appui de la requête en jugement sommaire, ou limiter la nature et l'étendue de tout contre-interrogatoire s'y rapportant, et permettre l'utilisation de ces affidavits lors de l'interrogatoire à l'instruction de la même manière qu'à l'interrogatoire préalable.
219. Lorsqu'elle rend un jugement sommaire, la Cour peut surseoir à l'exécution forcée de ce jugement jusqu'à la détermination d'une autre question soulevée dans l'action ou dans une demande reconventionnelle ou une mise en cause.
|
|
|
|
|
The relevant sections of the Radiocommunication Act, state as follows:
| 2. In this Act,
"broadcasting" means any radiocommunication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public;
[...]
"encrypted" means treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception;
[...]
"lawful distributor", in relation to an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed, means a person who has the lawful right in Canada to transmit it and authorize its decoding;
[...]
"radiocommunication" or "radio" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide;
[...]
"subscription programming signal" means radiocommunication that is intended for reception either directly or indirectly by the public in Canada or elsewhere on payment of a subscription fee or other charge;
9. (1) No person shall
[...]
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or
[...]
10. (1) Every person who
[...]
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
[...]
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
[...]
(2.5) No person shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) if the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
18. (1) Any person who
(a) holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,
[...]
(c) holds a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or
[...]
may, where the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b), in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct, or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate.
(3) In an action under subsection (1) against a person, the record of proceedings in any court in which that person was convicted of an offence under paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b) is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the person against whom the action is brought engaged in conduct that was contrary to that paragraph, and any evidence given in those proceedings as to the effect of that conduct on the person bringing the action is evidence thereof in the action.
|
|
2. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi.
« radiodiffusion » Toute radiocommunication dont les émissions sont destinées à être reçues directement par le public en général.
[...]
« encodage » Traitement électronique ou autre visant à empêcher la réception en clair.
[...]
« distributeur légitime » La personne légitimement autorisée, au Canada, à transmettre un signal d'abonnement ou une alimentation réseau, en situation d'encodage, et à en permettre le décodage.
[...]
« radiocommunication » ou « radio » Toute transmission, émission ou réception de signes, de signaux, d'écrits, d'images, de sons ou de renseignements de toute nature, au moyen d'ondes électromagnétiques de fréquences inférieures à 3 000 GHz transmises dans l'espace sans guide artificiel.
[...]
« signal d'abonnement » Radiocommunication destinée à être reçue, directement ou non, par le public au Canada ou ailleurs moyennant paiement d'un prix d'abonnement ou de toute autre forme de redevance.
9. (1) Il est interdit :
[...]
c) de décoder, sans l'autorisation de leur distributeur légitime ou en contravention avec celle-ci, un signal d'abonnement ou une alimentation réseau;
d) d'utiliser un appareil radio de façon à recevoir un signal d'abonnement ou une alimentation réseau ainsi décodé;
[..]
10. (1) Commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, dans le cas d'une personne physique, une amende maximale de cinq mille dollars et un emprisonnement maximal d'un an, ou l'une de ces peines, ou, dans le cas d'une personne morale, une amende maximale de vingt-cinq mille dollars quiconque, selon le cas :
[...]
b) sans excuse légitime, fabrique, importe, distribue, loue, met en vente, vend, installe, modifie, exploite ou possède tout matériel ou dispositif, ou composante de celui-ci, dans des circonstances donnant à penser que l'un ou l'autre est utilisé en vue d'enfreindre l'article 9, l'a été ou est destiné à l'être;
(2.1) Quiconque contrevient aux alinéas 9(1)c) ou d) commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, dans le cas d'une personne physique, une amende maximale de dix mille dollars et un emprisonnement maximal de six mois, ou l'une de ces peines, dans le cas d'une personne morale, une amende maximale de vingt-cinq mille dollars.
[...]
(2.5) Nul ne peut être déclaré coupable de l'infraction visée aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) s'il a pris les mesures nécessaires pour l'empêcher.
18. (1) Peut former, devant tout tribunal compétent, un recours civil à l'encontre du contrevenant quiconque a subi une perte ou des dommages par suite d'une contravention aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) ou 10(1)b) et :
a) soit détient, à titre de titulaire du droit d'auteur ou d'une licence accordée par ce dernier, un droit dans le contenu d'un signal d'abonnement ou d'une alimentation réseau;
[...]
c) soit est titulaire d'une licence attribuée, au titre de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, par le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes et l'autorisant à exploiter une entreprise de radiodiffusion;
[...]
Cette personne est admise à exercer tous recours, notamment par voie de dommages-intérêts, d'injonction ou de reddition de compte, selon ce que le tribunal estime indiqué.
(3) Dans tout recours visé au paragraphe (1) et intenté contre une personne, les procès-verbaux relatifs aux procédures engagées devant tout tribunal qui a déclaré celle-ci coupable d'une infraction aux alinéas 9(1)c), d) ou e) ou 10(1)b) constituent, sauf preuve contraire, la preuve que cette personne a eu un comportement allant à l'encontre de ces dispositions; toute preuve fournie lors de ces procédures quant à l'effet de l'infraction sur la personne qui intente le recours constitue une preuve à cet égard.
|
|
|
|
|
The relevant sections of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, state as follows:
| 3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, "copyright", in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right
[...]
and to authorize any such acts.
27. (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.
34. (1) Where copyright has been infringed, the owner of the copyright is, subject to this Act, entitled to all remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts, delivery up and otherwise that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right.
34.1 (1) In any proceedings for infringement of copyright in which the defendant puts in issue either the existence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff thereto,
(a) copyright shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to subsist in the work, performer's performance, sound recording or communication signal, as the case may be; and
(b) the author, performer, maker or broadcaster, as the case may be, shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the owner of the copyright.
35. (1) Where a person infringes copyright, the person is liable to pay such damages to the owner of the copyright as the owner has suffered due to the infringement and, in addition to those damages, such part of the profits that the infringer has made from the infringement and that were not taken into account in calculating the damages as the court considers just.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the proceedings, with respect to any one work or other subject-matter, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.
|
|
3. (1) Le droit d'auteur sur l'oeuvre comporte le droit exclusif de produire ou reproduire la totalité ou une partie importante de l'oeuvre, sous une forme matérielle quelconque, d'en exécuter ou d'en représenter la totalité ou une partie importante en public et, si l'oeuvre n'est pas publiée, d'en publier la totalité ou une partie importante; ce droit comporte, en outre, le droit exclusif :
[...]
Est inclus dans la présente définition le droit exclusif d'autoriser ces actes.
27. (1) Constitue une violation du droit d'auteur l'accomplissement, sans le consentement du titulaire de ce droit, d'un acte qu'en vertu de la présente loi seul ce titulaire a la faculté d'accomplir.
34. (1) En cas de violation d'un droit d'auteur, le titulaire du droit est admis, sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, à exercer tous les recours -- en vue notamment d'une injonction, de dommages-intérêts, d'une reddition de compte ou d'une remise -- que la loi accorde ou peut accorder pour la violation d'un droit.
34.1 (1) Dans toute procédure pour violation du droit d'auteur, si le défendeur conteste l'existence du droit d'auteur ou la qualité du demandeur :
a) l'oeuvre, la prestation, l'enregistrement sonore ou le signal de communication, selon le cas, est, jusqu'à preuve contraire, présumé être protégé par le droit d'auteur;
b) l'auteur, l'artiste-interprète, le producteur ou le radiodiffuseur, selon le cas, est, jusqu'à preuve contraire, réputé être titulaire de ce droit d'auteur.
35. (1) Quiconque viole le droit d'auteur est passible de payer, au titulaire du droit qui a été violé, des dommages-intérêts et, en sus, la proportion, que le tribunal peut juger équitable, des profits qu'il a réalisés en commettant cette violation et qui n'ont pas été pris en compte pour la fixation des dommages-intérêts.
38.1 (1) Sous réserve du présent article, le titulaire du droit d'auteur, en sa qualité de demandeur, peut, avant le jugement ou l'ordonnance qui met fin au litige, choisir de recouvrer, au lieu des dommages-intérêts et des profits visés au paragraphe 35(1), des dommages-intérêts préétablis dont le montant, d'au moins 500 $ et d'au plus 20 000 $, est déterminé selon ce que le tribunal estime équitable en l'occurrence, pour toutes les violations -- relatives à une oeuvre donnée ou à un autre objet donné du droit d'auteur -- reprochées en l'instance à un même défendeur ou à plusieurs défendeurs solidairement responsables.
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-337-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES INC.
ET AL.
Plaintiffs
and
THOMAS FRANKL carrying on business as
SIGNAL SOLUTIONS
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 18, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: October 21, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Ovadia FOR PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ovadia, Sauvageau FOR PLAINTIFFS
Montréal, Quebec
Thomas Frankl FOR DEFENDANT
Ste. Julie, Quebec
Email this Content