Who bears the costs of complying with Norwich orders? These orders require ISPs to disclose the identify of their subscribers to enable copyright owners to bring legal proceedings against suspected infringers. The issue was resolved earlier today by the Supreme Court in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2018 SCC 38.
Posts Tagged ‘notice and notice’
ISP are often ordered to disclose subscriber information to copyright holders seeking to vindicate their rights. Prior to the Copyright Modernization Act, ISPs were entitled to be paid reasonable compensation for compiling and disclosing the information. In an important ruling yesterday in Voltage Pictures, LLC v Joe Doe #1 2017 FCA 97, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the notice and notice regime established under the CMA changed the law. According to the Court, ISPs are now expected to retain and verify subscriber information without payment of any fees. They may only charge their costs for disclosing this information, costs that the Court stated were likely to be negligible.
The Government announced today that the notice and notice regime established under C-11 is coming into force in January 2015. The delay in bringing these provisions into force was a consultations on possible regulations that the regime permitted. The Government announced that the provisions are coming into force without regulations.
The regime permits copyright owners to send notices to internet service providers and other internet intermediaries claiming infringement of copyright. The notices must be passed on by these service providers to their users. Because there are no regulations, the notices must be processed and passed on by the internet intermediaries without any fees payable by copyright owners.
New Zealand just enacted legislation that puts in place a three-notice regime to deter illegal file sharing.
The three-notice regime involves ISPs sending warning notices to their customers informing them they may have infringed copyright. The legislation extends the jurisdiction of the NZ Copyright Tribunal to provide an efficient, low-cost process to hear illegal file-sharing claims. The tribunal will be able to make awards of up to $15,000 based on damage sustained by the copyright owner.
Canada’s last three copyright bills, C-60, C-61 and C-32, attempted to curb illegal online file sharing by requiring ISPs to forward notices of claimed infringements to customers. Canada’s ISPs had advocated for this “notice and notice” process claiming it was effective. However, they never produced any empirical evidence or studies to back up their claims.
Some anti-copyright critics compare the proposed copyright amendments in Bill C-32 with the copyright laws of the US to argue that Canadian copyright law with Bill C-32 passed would be more restrictive than in the US. International comparisons of copyright laws can be a very useful tool to gauge how Canadian laws stack up with international standards and norms. Regrettably, anti-copyright advocates often make their case by inaccurately and misleadingly describing US law to make it look more permissive than it is and by describing Bill C-32 in ways that makes it appear more restrictive than it is. This makes it difficult for the vast majority of the public to really assess Bill C-32 and to make properly informed judgements about it.
Digital piracy remains one of the biggest obstacles for the recording industry. It is an especially significant problem here in Canada. A major contributor is weak copyright protection which limits the development of new business models for music in Canada. These are the conclusions of the IFPI which just published a report setting out a comprehensive picture of the key trends in today’s music business including key trends in Canada. It is also the opinion of representatives of the recording industry who appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage last week.
Last month, the US based Computer & Communications Industry Association submitted a report to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in response to a request for comments in the USTR’s 2010 Special 301 Review. The Washington based CCIA made a submission in which it argued that Canada should not be placed on the Special 301 watch list.
In support of its argument, it stated that the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in its Section 301 Report had stated that “Canada has a notice and notice regime for dealing with copyright owner complaints over the online presence of their works, which the Supreme Court of Canada recently held provides effective remedies to copyright owners, Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Composers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers,  S.C.R. 427, 2004 S.C.C. 45.”