Date: 20101216
Dockets: A-209-09
A-210-09
Citation: 2010
FCA 348
CORAM: SHARLOW
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
Docket: A-209-09
BETWEEN:
SIRIUS CANADA INC.
Applicant
and
CMRRA/SODRAC INC., SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS
AND MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA, CANADIAN SATELLITE RADIO INC. and NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS
COLLECTIVE OF CANADA
Respondents
Docket: A-210-09
BETWEEN:
CMRRA/SODRAC INC. (CSI)
Applicant
and
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND MUSIC PUBLISHERS
OF CANADA (SOCAN), NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS COLLECTIVE
OF CANADA (NRCC),
SIRIUS CANADA INC. and CANADIAN
SATELLITE RADIO INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
These
are two applications for judicial review of a decision of the Copyright Board of
Canada dated April 8, 2009 (corrected May 6, 2009). The decision, reported as Re
Collective Administration of Performing Rights and of Communication
Rights, [2009] C.B.D. No. 4, certified certain royalty tariffs pursuant
to
section 70.15 of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, payable by
Sirius Canada Inc. (“Sirius”) and Canadian Satellite Radio Inc. (“XM Canada”) in
relation to their satellite radio services.
[2]
The
tariffs as certified are payable for the use of the repertoires of three
collective societies: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of
Canada (“SOCAN”) for the communication of musical or dramatico-musical works (2005-2009),
Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (“NRCC”) for the communication of
published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances
of such works (2007-2010), and CMRRA/SODRAC Inc. (“CSI”) for the reproduction
of musical works (2006-2009).
[3]
It
was undisputed before the Board that SOCAN and NRCC were entitled to communication
royalties from Sirius and XM Canada, the only dispute being the amount. It was
also undisputed that CSI was entitled to certain reproduction royalties, but
the extent of its entitlement was in dispute. The present applications, one by Sirius
(A-209-09) and the other by CSI (A-210-09), challenge the Board’s determination
of a number of legal issues relating to the royalty entitlement of CSI. The applications
were heard together. These reasons address both applications.
Facts
[4]
The
specific facts relating to each of the issues raised in these applications are
set out with the analysis of each issue. The general background relating to the
satellite radio services offered by Sirius and XM Canada during the years relevant
to these applications is described by the Board in paragraphs 8 to 26 of its decision.
The accuracy of that description is undisputed and it is reproduced here (footnotes
omitted):
|
[8]
The satellite radio services industry originated in the United States. XM Satellite Radio (XM)
launched its operation on September 25, 2001 and Sirius Satellite Radio
(Sirius U.S.) launched its operation on
July 1, 2002. They were the first and remain the largest operators in the
world.
|
|
[8]
L’industrie des services de radio par satellite a pris naissance aux
États-Unis. XM Satellite Radio (XM) a commencé ses opérations le 25 septembre
2001 et Sirius Satellite Radio (Sirius U.S.), le 1er juillet 2002. Ces
entreprises ont été les premières et demeurent les plus importantes du monde
dans ce domaine.
|
|
[9]
XM uses two high-powered geostationary satellites that rotate in
synchronization with the earth and provide blanket coverage of the entire U.S. mainland and southern Canada.
|
|
[9]
XM utilise deux satellites géostationnaires de grande puissance dont l’orbite
autour de la terre est en phase et qui procurent une couverture englobant
toute la partie continentale des États-Unis et le sud du Canada.
|
|
[10] Sirius uses three satellites that
move around the earth in an elliptical orbit. These satellites are called
geosynchronous and orbit above the equator for 16 hours a day and below the
equator for 8 hours permitting the satellite to sleep and conserve energy.
|
|
[10]
Sirius utilise trois satellites qui circulent autour de la terre selon une
orbite elliptique. Ces satellites sont appelés géosynchrones et sont placés
en orbite au-dessus de l’équateur durant 16 heures par jour et sous celui-ci,
pour les autres 8 heures, permettant ainsi au satellite d’entrer en état de
veille et de conserver de l’énergie.
|
|
[11]
The multiplex signal sent by satellite to the mobile receivers is encrypted
so that only those receivers equipped with a decryption key which permits the
unscrambling of the signal can receive and play the signal.
|
|
[11]
Le signal multiplex transmis par satellite aux récepteurs mobiles est codé de
telle sorte que seuls les récepteurs munis d’une clé de déchiffrement
permettant de débrouiller le signal peuvent le recevoir et le jouer.
|
|
[12]
The American services were able to expand into Canada by forming exclusive partnerships with
Canadian corporations. On June 16, 2005, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued broadcasting licences to [XM
Canada] and Sirius to offer satellite radio services across Canada. [XM Canada] launched its
operation on November 22, 2005 and Sirius on December 1, 2005.
|
|
[12]
L’expansion des services américains chez nous a été rendue possible par la
formation de coentreprises exclusives avec des sociétés canadiennes. Le 16
juin 2005, le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications
canadiennes (CRTC) a délivré à [XM Canada] et Sirius des licences de
radiodiffusion pour offrir des services de radio par satellite partout au
Canada. [XM Canada] a commencé ses opérations le 22 novembre 2005 et Sirius,
le 1er décembre 2005.
|
|
[13]
At the end of 2004, XM reported over 3.2 million subscribers, and Sirius U.S. had reached the one million
subscriber level. At the time of the hearing, Sirius and [XM Canada] had 200,000
and 120,000 subscribers respectively. By the summer of 2008, those numbers
had increased to 750,000 and 440,000. Satellite radio services quickly
penetrated the market. It took Sirius U.S. 3.6 years to have 5,000,000 units
in the hands of American customers, while DVDs took 2.5 years to reach the
same amount, MP3 players 4.8 years, cellular phones 10 years and satellite
television 10.6 years.
|
|
[13]
À la fin de 2004, XM déclarait plus de 3,2 millions d’abonnés, et Sirius U.S.
avait atteint le plateau du million d’abonnés. Lors de l’audience, Sirius et [XM
Canada] avaient respectivement 200 000 et 120 000 abonnés. À l’été 2008, ces
chiffres avaient augmenté à 750 000 et 440 000. Les services de radio
satellitaire ont connu une pénétration rapide du marché. Il aura fallu 3,6
années à Sirius U.S. pour placer 5 000 000 d’unités entre les mains de
clients américains, alors que le DVD a atteint le même nombre en 2,5 années,
le lecteur MP3 en 4,8 années, le téléphone cellulaire en 10 années et la
télévision par satellite en 10,6 années.
|
|
[14]
For our purposes, the infrastructure and operations of the two American
services, on which the Canadian services rely, are fairly similar. In order
to provide an uninterrupted radio broadcast service, the U.S. satellite services augment
their satellite signal through the use of a network of ground transmitters.
This technique, which is said to create “space diversity”, prevents signal
dropouts. With this combined infrastructure, the satellite services are able
to deliver all of their programming to all subscribers, regardless of their
location in North America at the time of reception.
|
|
[14]
Pour les besoins de l’espèce, l’infrastructure et l’exploitation des deux
services américains, sur lesquels les services canadiens reposent, sont assez
semblables. De façon à fournir un service radio ininterrompu, les services
américains augmentent leur signal satellitaire en utilisant un réseau
d’émetteurs terrestres. La technique qui, dit-on, crée de la « diversité
d’espace » évite les interruptions de signal. Avec cette infrastructure
mixte, les services sont en mesure de livrer toute leur programmation à tous
leurs abonnés, peu importe où ils se trouvent en Amérique du Nord lors de la
réception.
|
|
[15]
In terms of programming content, although each satellite service has
developed its own micro-niche programming, both offer a large selection of
commercial-free music channels covering a wide range of genres as well as
channels of news, children’s programs, sports, comedy, talk and traffic.
Additionally, a subscription to the satellite services offers the following
innovative features: text display providing artists’ name, songs’ title,
scores, stock quotations, a tagging mechanism alerting listeners when a song
or an artist is playing on another channel, temporary and permanent recording
options, pause and replay of live radio content, Internet service delivery of
some audio channels over the Web as a streaming service as well as allowing
the receiver to be used as a MP3 player.
|
|
[15]
Sur le plan du contenu de la programmation, même si chaque service a conçu
ses propres micro-créneaux de programmation, les deux offrent un vaste choix
de canaux de musique sans message publicitaire dans un large éventail de
genres, de même que des canaux d’actualités, d’émissions pour enfants, de
sports, de comédie, d’infovariété et de circulation. De plus, l’abonnement
aux services par satellite offre les innovations suivantes : affichage texte
du nom des artistes, du titre des chansons, des résultats sportifs et des
cotes de la bourse, une fonction de repérage avertissant l’auditeur qu’une
chanson ou un artiste tourne sur un autre canal, la possibilité de faire un
enregistrement temporaire ou permanent, l’arrêt-reprise de contenu audio en
direct, le service Internet de transmission sur demande de certains canaux
audio par le Web ainsi que l’utilisation du récepteur comme lecteur MP3.
|
|
[16]
Programming of the U.S. services is created and
delivered using a content management system (CMS) located at their main broadcast
studio. The objective of this system is to store once and deliver many times.
|
|
[16]
La programmation des services américains est créée et livrée au moyen d’un
système de gestion de contenu (SGC) situé à leur studio principal de
radiodiffusion. L’objectif de ce système est de mettre en mémoire une fois et
de livrer plusieurs fois.
|
|
[17]
[XM Canada] uses a CMS provided by Delat Digital Media System. [XM Canada]
produces and delivers 12 channels originating in Canada at studios located in Toronto and Montreal. Music directors at these
two sites select the music to be used which is then injected in the system
using functions of the Delat workstations located in these two cities. These
workstations are directly connected to the main Delat CMS located in Washington, D.C. by a fibre optic line (OC3
line).
|
|
[17]
[XM Canada] utilise un SGC fourni par Delat Digital Media System. [XM Canada]
produit et livre 12 canaux en provenance du Canada de studios situés à
Toronto et à Montréal. Les directeurs musicaux à ces deux sites sélectionnent
les pièces qui sont par la suite injectées dans le système par des fonctions
des postes de travail Delat situés dans ces deux villes. Ces postes sont
reliés directement au SGC principal situé à Washington, D.C. par un lien de fibre
optique (lien OC3).
|
|
[18]
Sirius uses a CMS called Nex Gen but does not produce any programming in Canada. All Sirius’ content in Canada is produced by Canadian
third-party content providers. These providers generate and deliver the
content to the Sirius master control centre located in New York City.
|
|
[18]
Sirius utilise un SGC connu sous le nom de Nex Gen mais ne produit aucune
programmation au Canada. Tout son contenu canadien est produit par des tiers
canadiens fournisseurs de contenu. Ces derniers génèrent et livrent le
contenu au centre de contrôle principal de Sirius, situé à New York.
|
|
[19]
XM has a complex of 82 studios in Washington as well as studios in New York, Nashville and Chicago. Sirius U.S. is based out of New York
and has other studios in Los
Angeles and Memphis. Programming is not
typically delivered live, with the obvious exception of live sporting events.
Essentially, before programming can be uplinked to the satellites for
delivery, programming directors must store a copy of all music and audio
files required onto the main server. These files are compressed, encoded and
combined to complete the process commonly referred to as “multiplexing”.
Selection and scheduling of programming content are done using specialized
software that instructs the main server when and in what order it must play
the various music or audio files. The server also serves the alternative
delivery channels, including Internet and cellular phone streaming services.
|
|
[19]
XM dispose d’un ensemble de 82 studios à Washington ainsi que des studios à
New York, Nashville et Chicago. La principale place d’affaires de Sirius U.S.
est à New York et elle a d’autres studios à Los Angeles et Memphis. La
programmation n’est habituellement pas livrée en direct, sauf bien sûr les
événements sportifs en direct. Essentiellement, avant que la programmation ne
soit transmise au satellite en vue de sa livraison, les directeurs de
programmation doivent mettre en mémoire dans le serveur principal une copie
de tous les fichiers de musique et audio. Les fichiers sont comprimés,
encodés et compilés afin de réaliser le processus communément appelé «
multiplexage ». Le choix et la programmation du contenu se font au moyen de
logiciels spécialisés qui commandent au serveur principal le moment et
l’ordre dans lesquels celui-ci doit faire entendre les divers fichiers de
musique ou audio. Le serveur dessert également les canaux alternatifs de
livraison, dont les services de transmission sur demande sur Internet et aux
cellulaires.
|
|
[20]
Although the Canadian satellite services rely heavily on their U.S. partner’s
programming, the terms of their CRTC licence require them to include in their
subscription package a minimum of content produced in Canada. Accordingly, out of the
130 channels [XM Canada] offers, 13 are produced in Canada while out of the 110 channels Sirius
offers, 11 are produced in Canada. The Satellite Radio
Services differ slightly in the way they create and deliver their Canadian
content. It is useful, in light of the legal issues raised, to highlight the
distinctive features of each Service.
|
|
[20]
Bien que les services par satellite canadiens utilisent abondamment la
programmation de leurs partenaires américains, les conditions de leur licence
du CRTC les obligent à inclure dans leur bouquet d’abonnement un minimum de
contenu produit au Canada. En conséquence, des 130 canaux offerts par [XM
Canada], 13 sont produits au Canada, alors que des 110 offerts par Sirius, 11
le sont. Les services de radio par satellite créent et livrent leur contenu
canadien de façon quelque peu différente. Compte tenu des questions de droit
soulevées, il est utile de souligner les caractéristiques qui différencient
chaque service.
|
|
[21]
[XM Canada] creates its own programming. A digital communication link from
the Canadian offices to the U.S. infrastructure allows the work stations in Canada to send instructions
directly to the servers and the scheduling software sitting in U.S.
headquarters in Washington. Thus, [XM Canada] programming is conceived
and controlled in Canada but produced from Washington.
|
|
[21]
[XM Canada] crée sa propre programmation. Un lien de communication numérique
reliant les bureaux canadiens à l’infrastructure américaine permet aux
stations de travail de transmettre des instructions directement du Canada aux
serveurs et au logiciel d’ordonnancement situés dans les quartiers généraux
de Washington. La programmation de [XM Canada] est donc conçue et contrôlée
au Canada, mais produite de Washington.
|
|
[22]
[XM Canada] receives audio content in the form of CDs or through
DMDS-Musicrypt service provided by the sound recording industry. When dealing
with a new CD, the production team makes a copy directly on the server in the
U.S. using the digital
connection, without making any back up or archival copies. New music obtained
through DMDS-Musicrypt is received as digital audio files from a server that
sits in Canada. In this case, an
intermediary copy of the file is stored on a work station located in Canada. If the Canadian production
team selects the song, then that file is “transferred” onto the main server
in Washington via the digital
communication link.
|
|
[22] [XM Canada] reçoit le contenu
audio sous forme de CD ou par l’intermédiaire d’un service SDMN-Musicrypt
fourni par l’industrie de l’enregistrement sonore. À la réception d’un
nouveau CD, l’équipe de production en fait une copie directement sur le
serveur aux Etats-Unis au moyen du lien numérique, sans en faire de copies de
sauvegarde ou d’archivage. La nouvelle musique obtenue grâce au SDMN-Musicrypt
est reçue sous forme de fichiers audionumériques d’un serveur situé au
Canada. Dans ce cas, une copie intermédiaire du fichier est mémorisée dans
une station de travail située au Canada. Si l’équipe de production canadienne
choisit la chanson, ce fichier est alors « transféré » dans le serveur
principal à Washington par le lien de communication numérique.
|
|
[23]
When it comes time to scheduling program content, the programming director
instructs the U.S. scheduling software to play specific songs and recorded
voice elements in a certain order and at the appropriate time; the Washington
server plays them off its local hard drives, combining the Canadian channels
with the American ones into the common multiplex signal that is sent up to
the satellite.
|
|
[23]
Le moment venu de programmer le signal, le directeur de la programmation
donne des instructions aux logiciels de répartition américains de jouer des
chansons et des enregistrements vocaux donnés, dans un certain ordre et au
moment opportun; le serveur situé à Washington les fait alors jouer à même
ses propres disques durs en mixant les canaux canadiens et américains en un
signal multiplex commun qui est transmis au satellite.
|
|
[24]
Unlike [XM Canada], Sirius does not produce any programming itself; it
acquires all of its Canadian content from Canadian third-party content
providers. Standard Radio Inc. provides Sirius with a Canadian rock music
channel called Iceberg 95 created in studios located in Toronto. The content is available
in CD and DMDS-Musicrypt. The music is scheduled from Toronto, loaded onto the Sirius
master server where it is encoded and digitized for delivery to the server’s
master control centre in New
York City.
Astral Media provides Sirius with two Canadian rock music channels, Rock
Velours and Énergie, pursuant to a subcontract with Standard Radio. The
programming is created in Montreal using the same technology
used by Standard Radio. The music is scheduled from Montreal on a six-hour loop for broadcast each
day by a program called Music Master. Content providers store the music files
and create the programming on a server located in their respective broadcast
studio. Again, if musical works are provided on a CD, a digital copy is made
on the content provider’s server. If musical works are provided through
DMDS-Musicrypt, a digital link to that service is used to copy that file onto
the Canadian server. Sirius’ Canadian content providers do not make archival
copies of musical works.
|
|
[24]
Contrairement à [XM Canada], Sirius ne produit pas elle-même de
programmation; elle acquiert la totalité de son contenu canadien de tiers
canadiens fournisseurs de contenu. Standard Radio Inc. fournit à Sirius un
canal de musique rock canadienne connu sous le nom de Iceberg 95, produit
dans des studios situés à Toronto. Le contenu est disponible sur CD et
SDMN-Musicrypt. La musique est répartie de Toronto, stockée dans le serveur
principal de Sirius où elle est encodée et numérisée pour sa livraison au
serveur du centre de contrôle principal à New York. Astral Media fournit à
Sirius deux canaux de musique rock canadienne, Rock Velours et Énergie, en
vertu d’un contrat de sous-traitance avec Standard Radio. La programmation
est créée à Montréal avec la même technologie que celle utilisée par Standard
Radio. La musique est répartie de Montréal en boucle de six heures pour
radiodiffusion quotidienne au moyen d’un logiciel appelé Music Master. Les
fournisseurs de contenu compilent les fichiers de musique et créent la
programmation sur un serveur situé dans leur studio de radiodiffusion
respectif. Encore une fois, si des oeuvres musicales sont fournies sur CD,
une copie numérisée en est faite sur le serveur du fournisseur de contenu. Si
des oeuvres musicales sont fournies par SDMN-Musicrypt, un lien numérique
auquel ce service est branché est utilisé pour reproduire ce fichier dans le
serveur canadien. Les fournisseurs canadiens de contenu de Sirius ne font pas
de copie d’archives des oeuvres musicales.
|
|
[25]
Sirius’ content providers use a specialized scheduling software that is part
of their server complex to determine which songs and other recorded voice
elements will be played and when. When it is time for a show to air, the
scheduling system automatically plays it off the copies on the Canadian
servers. That output is linked by communication lines to the U.S. facility, combined with the
other American channels and uplinked to the satellites. The content used on
the Canadian originated signals is never actually stored on the Sirius U.S.
server.
|
|
[25]
Les fournisseurs de contenu de Sirius utilisent un logiciel de répartition
spécialisé intégré à leur ensemble de serveurs pour déterminer les chansons
et autres enregistrements vocaux qui seront joués ainsi que le moment où ils
le seront. Lorsque vient le temps de diffuser une émission, le système de
répartition la transmet à partir des copies dans les serveurs canadiens. Ces
sorties de données sont intégrées aux installations américaines par des
lignes de communication, mixées aux autres canaux américains et transmises
aux satellites par liaison ascendante. Le contenu utilisé dans les signaux
provenant du Canada n’est jamais vraiment stocké dans le serveur de Sirius
U.S.
|
|
[26] In both cases, once the
programming has been multiplexed and uplinked to the satellites, programming
is delivered to the subscribers’ respective receivers in Canada and the U.S. The Satellite Services’
management system tells the Canadian receivers which channels a subscriber is
entitled to receive and the U.S. satellite services’
management system does the same for its American subscribers. Although the
signal that Canadian subscribers receive holds all the channels offered by
both the U.S. and Canadian Satellite
Services, because the signal is encrypted, they will only have access to a
subset of channels.
|
|
[26] Dans les deux cas, une fois que la
programmation a été multiplexée et transmise aux satellites par liaison
ascendante, elle est livrée aux récepteurs respectifs des abonnés au Canada
et aux États-Unis. Les systèmes de gestion des services par satellite
indiquent aux récepteurs canadiens les canaux qu’un abonné est en droit de
capter; ceux des systèmes américains font de même pour les abonnés
américains. Bien que le signal reçu par les abonnés canadiens contienne tous
les canaux offerts par les services américain et canadien, parce que le
signal est chiffré, les abonnés n’auront accès qu’à un sousensemble de
canaux.
|
[5]
The tariffs
set by the Board are stated as a percentage of the total revenues of Sirius and
XM Canada. They are summarized in a table appended to its reasons. The main
part of the table is reproduced below with an additional column added on the
right to give an identifying designation to each tariff component.
|
|
Full rates
|
Designation
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOCAN
|
4.26%
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRCC
|
1.18%
|
N
|
|
|
|
|
|
CSI
|
|
|
|
Programming
(with play copies)
|
0.10%
|
C1
|
|
Extended
buffer and replay
|
1.87%
|
C2
|
|
Storing
individual songs and block programming
|
2.90%
|
C3
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
Receiver
with no copying functionality (with play copies)
|
5.54%
|
S + N + C1
|
= T1
|
|
Receiver
with extended buffer and replay
|
7.41%
|
T1 + C2
|
= T2
|
|
MP3-like
receiver
|
10.31%
|
T2 + C3
|
= T3
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
(Average)
|
6.19%
|
|
[6]
The
notes accompanying the full table in the Board’s decision explain that (a) the
C1 rate (0.10%) is subject to a 95% discount when no play copies are being
made, (b) the C3 rate (2.90%) assumes that the receiver is also enabled for
extended buffer and replay, and (c) the computed average rate (6.19%) is based
on the assumption that 30% of subscribers have receivers with buffer and replay
functions and 3% have MP-3 like receivers.
Copyright Act
[7]
These
applications require consideration of the territorial scope of the Copyright
Act, and consideration of what constitutes the “authorization” of a reproduction
of a work. The relevant provisions of the Copyright Act read as follows:
|
2.
In this Act, …
“copyright”
[« droit d’auteur »] means the rights described in
(a)section 3, in the case of a work …
“infringing”
[« contrefaçon »]
means
(a)
in relation to a work in which copyright subsists, any copy, including any
colourable imitation, made or dealt with in contravention of this Act …
…
“musical
work” [« oeuvre
musicale »] means
any work of music or musical composition, with or without words, and includes
any compilation thereof …
|
2. Les définitions qui suivent
s’appliquent à la présente loi. …
« contrefaçon »
[“infringing”]
a) À l’égard d’une oeuvre sur
laquelle existe un droit d’auteur, toute reproduction, y compris l’imitation
déguisée, qui a été faite contrairement à la présente loi ou qui a fait l’objet
d’un acte contraire à la présente loi; …
[…]
« droit
d’auteur » [“copyright”]
S’entend
du droit visé :
a) dans le cas d’une oeuvre, à
l’article 3…
« oeuvre musicale » [“musical work”] Toute oeuvre ou toute
composition musicale — avec ou sans paroles — et toute compilation de
celles-ci.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
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
|
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 :
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
and
to authorize any such acts.
|
Est inclus dans la présente définition le droit exclusif
d’autoriser ces actes.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
Standard of
review
[8]
The
core of the Board’s statutory mandate is the determination of an appropriate
royalty tariff. Such determinations, when challenged on judicial review, are
generally entitled to deference. However, such determinations sometimes require
the Board to determine legal issues of general significance, including
questions of the interpretation of the Copyright Act. A challenge to the
Board’s determination of such legal issues are reviewed on the standard of
correctness: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian
Association of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45, at
paragraphs 49 and 50 (“the Tariff 22 case”).
[9]
Most
of the issues in this case are similar in nature to the issues raised in the Tariff
22 case, in that the applicants are alleging that the Board has incorrectly
determined general questions of copyright law. I have reviewed those issues on the
standard of correctness. Other issues have been reviewed on the standard of
reasonableness.
[10]
I
propose to deal first with the Sirius application (A-209-09) and then with the
CSI application (A-210-09).
Sirius application
(A-209-09)
[11]
Two
tariff components are in issue in the Sirius application. One is the 1.87% component
designated C2 in the table above. It is imposed in respect of satellite radio
receivers with an “extended buffer” that automatically stores 44 to 60 minutes
of programming that is broadcast on the channel to which the subscriber chooses
to listen. The models with this feature are the Starmate Replay, the Starmate
4, the Sportster Replay, and the Stiletto (SL10 and SL100). A subscriber who
has a satellite radio receiver with an extended buffer may press a button that
causes live content to be paused and replaced with a replay of the stored
content. Because the storage space in an extended buffer is limited, the oldest
stored content is automatically replaced with new content once the buffer is
full. The stored content is lost if the subscriber turns off the receiver,
removes it from its docking station, or changes the channel.
[12]
The
other tariff component in issue in the Sirius application is the 2.90% component
designated C3 in the table above. It is imposed in respect of the block recording
feature included in the “Stiletto” models of satellite radio receiver (SL 10
and SL100). When a subscriber engages the block recording feature, the receiver
stores several hours of broadcast content for later replay (the SL 10 stores up
to ten hours of programming in six hour blocks, the SL 100 stores up to 100
hours of programming in six hour blocks). If the subscriber presses the “love”
button during a broadcast, the content then being played (plus whatever is
accessible from the replay buffer) is stored in a “library”. The saved content
may be played back by accessing the library. The stored content is
automatically replaced by content newly stored from a broadcast and any MP3
files downloaded by the subscriber.
[13]
It
appears that some Sirius receivers may also be used as MP3 players. The MP3
feature does not enable a satellite radio subscriber to record satellite radio broadcast
content. However, the Board noted that Sirius markets itself as an alternative
to iPods or MP3 players, apparently on the basis that the MP3 feature employs
the buffer capacity of Sirius radio receiver as described above. In my view,
the fact that some satellite radio receivers may function as MP3 players is not
relevant to the issues considered in the Sirius application.
[14]
It
is convenient at the outset to deal with a relatively minor preliminary point. The
Board said that it relied in part on the agreement of the parties that what is
stored in the extended buffer of a radio receiver is a copy of the content that
is made by the subscriber (see the Board’s reasons, at paragraph 110). Sirius
denies that it made any such concession, but it has not argued that the stored
content is not a copy. Rather, Sirius has argued in one of its alternative arguments
that the Board breached its duty to provide adequate reasons on the question of
whether the content in the extended buffer – which Sirius characterizes as
“ephemeral storage” – is a reproduction of a substantial part of a work. In my
view, it was open to the Board to determine, based on the record, that stored
broadcast content in the extended buffer is a copy made by the subscriber. Further,
given that the extended buffer stores 44 to 60 minutes of broadcast content
that can be replayed by the subscriber, the Board could not reasonably have
concluded that what is stored in the extended buffer at any point in time is
not a substantial part of a copied work.
[15]
The
heart of the Sirius application is its challenge to the Board’s conclusion that
a satellite radio service provider, by supplying a subscriber with a receiver having
an extended buffer or a block recording feature, necessarily authorizes the
subscriber to copy works that are subject to copyright. The issue for this
Court is whether the Board erred in law in reaching that conclusion.
[16]
The
Board’s analysis of this point is encapsulated in paragraph 113 of its reasons,
which reads as follows:
|
In
our opinion, [Sirius and XM Canada] have authorized a reproduction in the
present circumstances. All the recording options contained in the
"Stiletto" and similar receivers sold by [XM Canada] are dependent
on the subscriber's decision to use those features. The [contention of Sirius
and [XM Canada]] that they authorize the mere use of equipment that may or
may not be used to infringe copyright which entitles them to presume that
subscribers use the device in accordance with the law is not in accord with
the evidence in this case. Here [Sirius and XM Canada] are not passive. They
control the programming sent to the subscribers by encrypting the signal, and
by decrypting it they grant to their subscriber the right to access the full
programming including the right to use all of those services. [Sirius and XM
Canada] can program their receivers to permit or prevent copying. With
respect to block copying, pause and replay and other features, access to the
content copied in the extended buffers is controlled by [Sirius and XM Canada].
Subscribers who stop paying for the service no longer have access to the
content stored in their receivers. In addition, some end-user licence
agreements contemplate the possibility that subscribers will use the receiver
software to copy content programming or even individual songs based on which
a subscriber could presume that [Sirius and XM Canada] purport to have the
authority to allow private copying.
|
|
À notre avis, [Sirius et XM
Canada] ont autorisé une reproduction dans les présentes circonstances.
Toutes les fonctions d’enregistrement dont sont dotés le « Stiletto » et
les récepteurs semblables vendus par [XM Canada] sont tributaires de la
décision de l’abonné de les utiliser. L’argument des [Sirius et XM Canada]
selon lequel ceux-ci ne font que permettre l’utilisation d’équipement,
laquelle peut s’avérer illicite ou non, et s’autorisant de ce fait pour
supposer que les abonnés se servent des appareils dans le respect de la loi,
n’est pas conforme à la preuve versée au présent dossier. [Sirius et XM
Canada] ne sont pas passifs. Ils contrôlent la programmation transmise aux
abonnés en chiffrant le signal; en le décryptant, ils leur accordent le droit
d’accéder à toute la programmation, y compris le droit d’utiliser tous ces
services. [Sirius et XM Canada] peuvent programmer leurs récepteurs pour
autoriser ou empêcher la copie. En ce qui concerne la copie de bloc, la
pause, l’écoute différée et autres fonctions, l’accès au contenu reproduit
dans le tampon prolongé est contrôlé par [Sirius et XM Canada]. L’abonné qui
cesse de payer pour le service n’a alors plus accès au contenu stocké dans
son récepteur. De plus, certains contrats de licence d’utilisation prévoient
la possibilité pour les abonnés d’utiliser le logiciel du récepteur pour
copier du contenu de programmation ou même des chansons ce qui autoriserait
un abonné à supposer que [Sirius et XM Canada] sont censés disposer du
pouvoir d’autoriser les copies privées.
|
[17]
The
resolution of the main issue raised in the Sirius application turns on the
meaning to be given to the closing words of section 3 of the Copyright Act,
which refer to the authorization of any of the acts set out in the opening
words of subsection 3(1) or in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (i). The
relevant portions of subsection 3(1) read as follows (emphasis added):
|
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 …
|
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 …
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
and
to authorize any such acts.
|
Est inclus dans la présente définition le droit exclusif
d’autoriser ces actes.
|
[18]
There
is a long and consistent line of jurisprudence that gives a relatively narrow
meaning to the closing words of subsection 3(1) of the Copyright Act. That
jurisprudence is reflected in what is the leading Canadian authority on that point,
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada,
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 (“the CCH case”).
[19]
One of the issues in the CCH case was whether the Law
Society of Upper Canada, by providing self-service
photocopiers for the use of its patrons in the Great Library and not monitoring
their use, had authorized the patrons to copy the works in the Great Library
collection, thereby breaching the copyright of the owners and publishers of the
works. The
Law Society had posted the following notice above each photocopier: “The
copyright law of Canada governs the making of photocopies or
other reproductions of copyright material. Certain copying may be an
infringement of the copyright law. This library is not responsible for
infringing copies made by the users of these machines.”
[20]
The Chief Justice, writing for the Court, explained the
meaning of “authorize” as follows (at paragraph 38 of her reasons):
|
“Authorize”
means to “sanction, approve and countenance”: Muzak Corp. v. Composers,
Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Ltd., [1953] 2
S.C.R. 182, at p. 193; De Tervagne v. Belœil (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.
|
[21]
Applying
these principles, the Chief Justice concluded that the Law Society had not
authorized any copying in breach of the right of any copyright holder. I
summarize as follows the analysis leading to that conclusion.
[22]
Where
a person authorizes the use of equipment that may be used lawfully but may also
be used unlawfully to infringe copyright, it must be presumed that the person
authorized only the lawful use of the equipment (see paragraph 43). Although patrons of the
Great Library could have used the photocopiers to infringe copyright, it is
equally plausible that the patrons used the photocopiers without infringing
copyright. Therefore, the Law Society was prima facie entitled to the
benefit of the presumption against the authorization of an infringing act.
[23]
That
presumption is not rebutted by a notice warning a person who is permitted to
use equipment that certain uses could infringe copyright (paragraph 44).
Specifically, the “disclaimer notices” posted near the photocopiers in the
Great Library did not constitute express acknowledgement by the Law Society
that the photocopiers would be used in an unlawful manner.
[24]
The presumption may
be rebutted if the person authorizing the use of equipment is, by virtue of its
relationship with the user of the equipment, in a position to control the use
of the equipment such that it can be said to have sanctioned, approved, or
countenanced any infringement resulting from the use of the equipment. However, even if some
patrons of the Great Library used its photocopiers to infringe copyright, the
Law Society lacked the degree of control over the Great Library’s patrons that
would rebut the presumption. This
point is explained in more detail at paragraph 45 (citation omitted):
|
The Law
Society and Great Library patrons are not in a master-servant or
employer-employee relationship such that the Law Society can be said to
exercise control over the patrons who might commit infringement […]. Nor does
the Law Society exercise control over which works the patrons choose to copy,
the patron’s purposes for copying or the photocopiers themselves.
|
[25]
In
this case, satellite radio service providers may be said to authorize their subscribers
to use all features of the radio receivers with which they are supplied. It is
appropriate that the satellite radio service providers be given, prima facie,
the benefit of the presumption against the authorization of the use of the
receivers to infringe copyright. The issue for this Court is whether the
presumption has been rebutted.
[26]
In the circumstances of
this case, the question of rebuttal turns on the degree to which satellite
radio service providers control the use of the satellite radio receivers they
supply to their subscribers. In that regard, I do not read the CCH case as
authority for the proposition that the degree of control required to rebut the
presumption necessarily requires a particular legal relationship between the
user of equipment and the person authorizing its use. In my view, while the
requisite degree of control may exist if there is, for example, a master-servant
relationship or an employer-employee relationship, it may also exist in other
circumstances.
[27]
Here,
the relationship is one of satellite radio service provider and subscriber. The
service provider supplies the subscriber with broadcast content (some of which,
but not all, is subject to copyright) and a receiver that must be used to
receive the broadcast content. The use of a receiver with an extended buffer
automatically causes 44 to 60 minutes of broadcast content to be copied, and
the use of a receiver with block recording feature that is engaged
automatically causes up to 10 or 100 hours of broadcast content to be copied.
[28]
It
is important, in my view, that the subscriber cannot prevent the copying of
broadcast content without turning the receiver off or, if the receiver has a
block recording feature, by disengaging it. Because the copying is automatic, the
only control that can be exercised over copying initiated by the subscriber rests
with the satellite radio service providers. They alone know what is being
broadcast and when, and what broadcast content is subject to copyright. They
alone have chosen to supply their subscribers with receivers that preclude them
from exercising any choice as to what is copied in the extended buffer once the
receiver is turned on, and any choice as to what is copied when the block
recording feature, if any, is engaged.
[29]
It
is true that not all broadcast content is subject to copyright. However, it is
equally true that when a particular work is being broadcast on a particular
channel, and a satellite radio receiver is turned on and tuned to that channel,
some or all of that work will necessarily be copied to the extended buffer or,
in the case of a receiver with a block recording feature that is engaged, to
the block recording memory. In practical terms, the use of a satellite radio
receiver as it is intended to be used will always result in the making of infringing
copies because of the technological choices made by satellite radio service providers.
[30]
The
element of automatic copying by a satellite radio receiver is a factor
that was not present in the CCH case. Each patron of the Great Library could
choose what to copy and what not to copy. By contrast, in this case a
subscriber causes the copying of all received broadcast content merely
by using the satellite radio receiver as it is intended to be used. In my view,
in
the circumstances of this case, the presumption against the authorization of an
infringing act is rebutted in this case by the degree of control exercised by
the satellite radio service providers over their broadcast content and the
features included in the radio receivers supplied to their subscribers.
[31]
This
leads me to consider the question of disclaimer notices, which were the subject
of considerable discussion in the hearing of these applications. Notices that
are somewhat analogous to the disclaimer notices in the CCH case appear
in the “user guide” and the “end user licence agreement” for Stiletto
receivers. CSI argues statements from those documents could be interpreted by
users as a “signal” that the copying of copyright material on the receiver is
permitted. The Board appeared to accept this submission at paragraph
113 of its reasons, the last sentence of which reads as follows:
|
In
addition, some end-user licence agreements contemplate the possibility that
subscribers will use the receiver software to copy content programming or
even individual songs based on which a subscriber could presume that the
Satellite Services purport to have the authority to allow private copying.
|
|
De plus, certains contrats de licence
d’utilisation prévoient la possibilité pour les abonnés d’utiliser le
logiciel du récepteur pour copier du contenu de programmation ou même des
chansons ce qui autoriserait un abonné à supposer que les services par
satellite sont censés disposer du pouvoir d’autoriser les copies privées.
|
[32]
The
notices to which this Court was referred read as follows:
|
From
the Stiletto User Guide:
|
|
Several
features of the Stiletto 10 [or 100] enable you to record and store broadcast
content for playback. Broadcast content is subject to copyright laws, and
distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited by law without the express
permission of the copyright holder. To prevent unlawful distribution of copyrighted
material, the Stiletto 10 [or 100] prevents you from electronically copying
stored (recorded) songs or shows to another device.
|
|
From
the Stiletto 10 End User Licence Agreement:
|
|
You
may use the Software only for your private, non-commercial use. You may not
use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service
or application. Copies of content files, including without limitation songs
and other audio recordings, which are stored and/or transferred using the
Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of
any jurisdiction, are for your
own
personal use only and you may not publicly perform them or distribute them to
third parties.
|
[33]
As I
read these notices, they are intended primarily to warn subscribers about
certain impermissible uses of copies of broadcast content stored in the
satellite radio receiver that may be subject to copyright. The notices might
have been more thorough if they had expressly informed subscribers that merely
receiving broadcast content on a receiver equipped with an extended buffer or a
receiver equipped with a block recording feature that is engaged may result in
the making of an infringing copy of broadcast content that is subject to
copyright. Nevertheless, I am not inclined to conclude, as the Board apparently
did, that the absence of that information justifies the conclusion that a
subscriber might presume that the satellite radio service providers “purport to
have the authority to allow private copying”. I would say, however, that the
satellite radio service providers could not realistically have advised their
subscribers against making infringing copies, because copying was automatic in
the case of a receiver with an extended buffer, and in the case of a receiver
with a block recording feature when it was engaged.
[34]
For
these reasons, I conclude that the Board did not err in law when it concluded
that the satellite radio service providers, by supplying a subscriber with a radio
receiver having an extended buffer or a block recording feature, thereby
authorized the subscriber to copy all broadcast content, including broadcast
content that was subject to copyright. It follows that the Sirius application
cannot succeed.
CSI application
(A-210-09)
[35]
CSI
asserts a number of challenges to the Board’s decision. Its challenges fall
into two general categories. The first category relates to the determination of
the location of the copying of a work and whether an infringing authorization
can occur in relation to a copy made outside Canada. The second
category relates to the copies of broadcast content made in the 4, 6 or 10
second buffer memory found in all satellite radio receivers.
(1) The location of the
copying of a work, and the authorization of copying outside Canada
[36]
A
copy of each work available for broadcast by Sirius and XM Canada resides in a
main server located in the United States. When Sirius and XM
Canada instruct their scheduling software to play a specific work, the
instruction is sent to the United States main server, and the
track for that work is uplinked from the United States main server to the
satellite for transmission to Canada in the course of their Canadian broadcast
activities.
[37]
Some
of the electronic copies of works residing in the United States main server
are created by transmission from a party located in the United
States
based on instructions from Sirius and XM Canada. Others are transmitted from
the Canadian studios of XM Canada as a step in the programming of its Canadian
channels.
[38]
Programming
entails the selection of works, some obtained in the form of CDs and some by
direct electronic transfer from DMDS-Musicrypt to XM Canada’s computer in Canada. Once the XM
Canada music director in Canada selects a work to be added to the XM Canada
playlist, he or she engages a technological device that causes the electronic music
file to be transferred from Canada to a main server located in the United
States, where it remains permanently available for uplink to the satellite and
transmission to Canada.
[39]
The
issues raised by CSI in relation to the copies of works residing in the United
States main server are whether the Board erred in law when it concluded that:
(a) the Board has no jurisdiction to impose a royalty tariff in respect of a
copy of a work made in the United States as a direct result of an act taken by
XM Canada in Canada; (b) the Board has no jurisdiction to impose a royalty
tariff in respect of XM Canada’s authorization in Canada of the making in the
United States of a copy of a work; (c) Sirius and XM Canada did not authorize
the copying in the United States of any works.
[40]
The
Board concluded that, when an electronic copy of a work is transmitted to and stored
on the United
States
main server solely as a result of the act of a person in Canada, the copying
occurs in the United
States
and therefore the Board has no jurisdiction to impose a royalty tariff in
respect of that copying. In reaching that conclusion, the Board reasoned that
the act of reproduction occurs in the place where the creation of the copy is
completed, so that an electronic copy of a work comes into existence in the United
States
when it is received by the server located in the United States. Therefore, that
copy is made in the United States even if the mechanism by which the copy was
created was activated in Canada.
[41]
CSI
argues that where the copying is initiated in Canada, the act of copying
occurs in Canada because there is no person outside Canada who can be
held responsible for it. This argument assumes that the making of the copy in
these circumstances cannot be subject to the copyright laws of the United States, and that the
owner of the United States server who permits it to be used as the repository
for copies of musical works cannot be held liable under the copyright laws of
the United
States.
This Court was referred to nothing in the record and no jurisprudence that
could support this assumption, and I see no basis for accepting it.
[42]
CSI
also relies on the decision of eBay Canada v. M.N.R., [2010]
1 F.C.R. 145, 2008 FCA 348, at paragraph 52, for the proposition that
information stored on a computer in the United States is in law capable of
being located in Canada for the purpose of section 231.6 of the Income Tax
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). CSI argues that, based on
the reasoning in that case, the electronic copy of a musical work stored on the
United States server may be treated as being located in Canada for the purposes
of the Copyright Act.
[43]
Nothing in eBay compels the conclusion that, for the
purposes of the Copyright Act, an electronic copy of a musical work
stored in a server in a particular country is also located in another country merely
because there is a person in that other country who can access the copy. I
would reject any such interpretation because it would necessarily mean that a specific
copy of a work may, at the same moment, be within the territorial scope of the Copyright
Act and the territorial scope of any number of the copyright laws of any
number of other countries. That would not be consistent with the well
established and well understood territorial limitation of the Copyright Act
(see the Tariff 22 case, paragraph 56).
[44]
Nor can I accept the argument of CSI that the copying
occurred in both Canada and the United States, so
that the location of the copying for purposes of the Copyright Act should
be determined on the basis of the “real and substantial connection” test as
applied in the Tariff 22 case. The Tariff 22 case required a determination, for
the purposes of the Copyright Act, of the location of a communication initiated
in one country and received in another. Given that a communication cannot be
complete without both a sender and receiver, it was necessary to adopt a
principled basis for choosing whether the communication would be situated at
the location of the sender or the location of the receiver. The principle
applied in that case – the real and substantial connection test – is not
required to determine the location of the act of copying where, as in this
case, the completed copy exists only in one location.
[45]
I
agree with the Board that the making of a copy is not complete until it exists
in some material form (see subsection 3(1) of the Copyright Act). I also
agree that the electronic copies of works stored in the United States main
server are outside the Board’s jurisdiction, even if the copying was initiated
in Canada. I am
compelled to conclude that CSI’s challenge to that aspect of the Board’s
decision cannot succeed.
[46]
CSI
argues in the alternative that a person who initiates, in Canada, the making
of an electronic copy of a work in the United States has authorized the copying,
and has thereby infringed in Canada the copyright attached to the work by
virtue of the closing words of subsection 3(1) of the Copyright Act. The
Board, based on its interpretation of subsection 3(1), concluded that the act
of authorizing in Canada is not actionable under the Copyright Act
where the primary infringement occurs outside Canada. I agree.
[47]
As I
interpret the closing words of subsection 3(1), the authorization of a
particular act infringes copyright only if the authorized act is itself an act
of infringement. Therefore, when the Board concluded correctly that it has no
jurisdiction to impose a royalty tariff in relation to the copying of a work located
in the United States, it was compelled to conclude that it has no jurisdiction
to impose a royalty tariff in relation to the authorization of that copying,
even if the authorization took place in Canada.
[48]
CSI
also argues that the Board should have concluded that Sirius and XM Canada
authorize the copying of all musical works on the United States servers,
including copies created by the act of a person in the United States. That
argument too must fail, based on the interpretation of paragraph 3(1) of the Copyright
Act set out in the previous paragraph.
(2) Copies in the 4 to
10 second buffer
[49]
The
remaining challenges by CSI to the Board’s decision relate to the 4 to 10
second buffer memory found in all satellite radio receivers supplied by Sirius
and XM Canada to its subscribers. The buffer memory automatically records 4 to
10 seconds of broadcast content. The recorded content is continuously replaced
as new content is received so that at any point in time, only the last 4 to 10
seconds of broadcast content is in the buffer. The content is played to the
listener in a “rolling” fashion to provide for smooth listening, with none of
the interruptions that might be caused by momentary interruptions in
transmission.
[50]
The
specific questions are whether the Board erred in concluding that (a) a work is
not copied when 4 to 10 second segments of the work are copied in the buffer
memory of a satellite radio receiver or a personal computer; and (b) a 4 to 10
second segment of a work is not a substantial part of the work.
[51]
CSI
argues that the Board erred in law in determining that the rolling 4 to 10
seconds of broadcast content stored momentarily in the temporary memory of a
satellite radio receiver is not a copy of the work, or a copy of a substantial
part of a work. The Board’s conclusion on this point is primarily a finding of
mixed law and fact but CSI argues, in essence, that the Board misdirected
itself by reasoning that a copy of a work or a substantial part of a work would
exist only if a complete reproduction of the work exists at one point in time.
[52]
While
the Board clearly considered it relevant that the 4 to 10 second buffer does
not cause a copy of the entire work to exist at any point in time, I do not
read its reasons as indicating that this was determinative. As I understand the
Board’s reasons, its conclusion was influenced, not only by the fact that a
copy of no more than 4 to 10 seconds of content could exist in the buffer at
any one time, but also by the fact that there would at no time be a choice as
to what goes into the buffer and when it comes out. In my view, the Board’s conclusion
that the buffered content was not a copy of an entire work or a copy of a substantial
part of a work was reasonably open to it on the record and was not based on an
error of law. CSI’s application cannot succeed on this ground.
Conclusion
[53]
I
would dismiss both applications for judicial review with costs.
“K.
Sharlow”
“I
agree
Eleanor R. Dawson J.A.”
“I
agree
David Stratas J.A.”
Email this Content