Posts Tagged ‘copyright board’

Copyright Board studied by Senate Banking Committee

November 6th, 2016

The Copyright Board may not be a household name, but it is a vital institution that is relied upon by tens of thousands of creators and users. But, according to witnesses who appeared before the Senate banking committee examining the operation and practices of the Copyright Board of Canada last week, there are significant problems with it that need to be addressed.

The witnesses that appeared at the two Committee meetings included Claude Majeau, Vice-Chairman and Gilles McDougall, Secretary General, of the Copyright Board, Gilles Daigle (GC SOCAN), Erin Finlay (GC Access Copyright), Graham Henderson (President Music Canada), Jason Kee (Public Policy Counsel Google Canada), Ian MacKay (President Re:Sound), Paul Daly (U of Cambridge), Jeremy de Beer and Michael Geist (U of Ottawa), Ariel Katz (U of T), and Howard Knopf (Counsel, Macera & Jarzyna).

User’s Guide to Canadian Copyright Tariffs

January 24th, 2015

Ever have trouble figuring out what tariffs have been certified by the Copyright Board for the uses of copyright? If so, the new book entitled User’s Guide to Canadian Copyright Tariffs written by McCarthy Tétrault lawyers Peter Grant, Grant Buchanan, Dan Glover and Keith Rose is for you.


This 350 page book is an annotated guide to Canadian copyright tariffs relating to the use of music, the reproduction of literary works, media monitoring, private copying, and the retransmission of distant radio and television signals. The book includes the full text of the most recent version of all tariffs certified by the Copyright Board of Canada, along with explanatory tables and editorial notes.

Michael Geist’s attack on artists over Tariff 8 

August 13th, 2014

On May 16, 2014 the Copyright Board released its decision certifying Re: Sound Tariff 8 setting royalty rates for webcasting services in Canada. Re:Sound promptly filed an application for judicial review of the decision, calling it a “significant outlier in the world” that “greatly disadvantages the Canadian music industry in the globalized market place.” Re:Sound’s application was met with a blizzard of support when 70 music organizations released a joint statement publically denouncing the Copyright Board decision. They called it “a serious setback for the music community in Canada” and “for artists and the music companies who invest in their careers”.

YouTube, Facebook, Netflix liable to pay for music in Canada rules Copyright Board

July 21st, 2014

On Friday, the Copyright Board released a decision and certified two SOCAN tariffs, Tariffs 22.D.1 (Internet – Online Audiovisual Services) and 22.D.2 (Internet – User-Generated Content). The years covered by the tariffs are 2007-2013.

The tariffs were certified based on agreements reached between SOCAN and objectors. Between the objectors and other entities which filed submissions, the heavyweights affected by the tariffs participated including Apple, Yahoo!, YouTube,  Netflix, Facebook, Cineplex, the members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), and the Canadian ISPS Rogers, Bell, and Shaw.

Retirement of Mario Bouchard from Copyright Board

June 17th, 2013

Claude Majeau, Vice-Chairman & CEO of the Copyright Board just announded the retirement of Mario Bouchard, General Counsel of the Board. Here is a copy of the announcement:

Retirement of Mario Bouchard / Retraite de Mario Bouchard

After a fruitful career, including the last 23 years at the Copyright Board, Mr. Mario Bouchard, General Counsel of the Board, informed me of his decision to retire from the Federal public service, effective Monday, August 26, 2013.

Mr. Bouchard will cease to act as the Board’s General Counsel as of Monday, June 24, 2013, and will be assigned to specific duties until his retirement.

Copyright Board refuses CAB request to rescind CSI tariff

December 21st, 2012

The Copyright Board released a decision earlier today dismissing the application of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) for a decision reducing the royalties paid by commercial radio stations to CSI, AVLA/SOPROQ and ArtistI by 90 per cent, from November 7, 2012 until the Board renders a decision on the merits in the commercial radio tariff proceeding.

The CAB contended there is no longer a legal basis for a tariff targeting the reproduction of a sound recording, or a performer’s performance or work that is embodied in a sound recording, by commercial radio stations as a result of the recent Bill C-11 amendments to the Copyright Act and the fair dealing decision of the Supreme Court in SOCAN v. Bell Canada. The CAB also asked the Board to issue a decision rescinding the CSI tariff.

Copyright Board values music used in online music services

October 8th, 2012

Did you ever wonder what online music services like iTunes, Slacker, Rdio, Zik, and Songza pay for the music they use? On Friday, the Copyright Board released its decision in the SOCAN 22.A and CSI Online Music Services tariffs. The tariffs establish rates that music services must pay to music publishers for the communication to the public and reproduction rights in musical works for services that offer the following types of online music services:

  • Permanent downloads – a service that sells and distributes copies of sound recordings of musical works to a device such as a computer, cell phone, Smartphone, or iPod. The person who receives the download can listen to it indefinitely.

Educational Tariff Certified by Copyright Board Upheld by Federal Court of Appeal

July 27th, 2010

The Federal Court of Appeal released an important decision on Friday ruling on the subject of fair dealing in the K-12 educational sector. At issue was whether the Copyright Board erred in holding that when teachers copy books and other copyright materials for classroom use such copying is not covered by the fair dealing exception for private study. The Court dismissed the judicial review application holding that the “Board laid out the appropriate test from CCH and, through clear and comprehensible reasons, came to a justifiable conclusion. I see no reviewable error in respect of this issue.”