Tag: communication to the public

Legality of Kodi boxes: my interview with Fairchild TVLegality of Kodi boxes: my interview with Fairchild TV



Kodi boxes pre-configured to enable buyers to stream and download movie and TV content are proving to be a challenge to producers and distributors of this content in Canada and around the world. Recently the Federal Court granted an injunction prohibiting the sale of certain pre-configured boxes. The decision was recently affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

I was interviewed earlier this week about the these decisions and the legality of the sales and uses of these boxes. My interview can be viewed here and below.

Aereo infringes says international associations and copyright scholars to SCOTUSAereo infringes says international associations and copyright scholars to SCOTUS



Earlier today, a number of international and foreign associations and copyright scholars filed an Amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the ABC, Inc. et al v. Aereo, Inc case. The brief brings to the attention of the SCOTUS a number of international treaties and trade agreements respecting copyright that impose obligations on the United States to provide copyright holders with a broad technologically neutral communication to the public right that would cover all aspects of Aereo’s service and make its service infringing.

Streaming websites blocked in UK: Paramount v SkyStreaming websites blocked in UK: Paramount v Sky



The England High Court recently made an order requiring ISPs to block two linking websites located at www.solarmovie.so (“SolarMovie”) and www.tubeplus.me (“TubePlus”). In doing so, the court in Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch) (13 November 2013) ruled that the sites, which did not themselves host any content, were nevertheless liable for infringement because they facilitated streaming of content to users by hosting and organizing hyperlinks to the content without consent of copyright owners.

Internet retransmission of broadcasts a communication to the public, rules the CJEUInternet retransmission of broadcasts a communication to the public, rules the CJEU



The European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that retransmitting broadcasts over the internet infringes the communication to the public right, if done without authorization. The case involved TV Catchup Limited which operated an internet based live streaming service of broadcast television programmes.

The UK High Court in ITV Broadcasting Ltd & Ors v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat) (18 July 2011) referred the case to the EU Court of Justice (the CJEU). The case involved answering two questions. First, whether grabbing the over the air broadcasts and retransmitting them over the Internet was a communication.

Copyright Board to construe the making available rightCopyright Board to construe the making available right



In the ESA v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34 case, the Supreme Court decided by a 5 to 4 majority that the transmission of a copy of a musical work to members of the public is not a communication to the public within the meaning of Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act. When the Copyright Modernization Act was enacted the communication to the public right was expanded to expressly confer on copyright holders making available rights required by the WIPO Treaties.

Redefining copyright in the digital eraRedefining copyright in the digital era



Here is a copy of the article with the above title published in the January  20, 2012 edition of The Lawyers Weekly.

In early December, copyright lawyers from across the country descended on the Supreme Court to participate in a cluster of cases that may redefine the scope of copyright in the digital era.

The first case heard, ESA v. SOCAN, put the question directly to the court of how the bundle of rights set out in s. 3 of the Copyright Act ought to be construed in the case of downloads of files containing musical works. 

ASCAP case highlights differences in Canadian and US copyright lawASCAP case highlights differences in Canadian and US copyright law



The influential US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in ASCAP v RealNetworks that a download of a musical work is not a public performance under the US Copyright Act. According to the Court downloads of musical works are not musical performances that are contemporaneously perceived by the listener.

“They are simply transfers of electronic files containing digital copies from an on-line server to a local hard drive. The downloaded songs are not performed in any perceptible manner during the transfers; the user must take some further action to play the songs after they are downloaded.

Is an Internet posting of a work a world-wide publication for copyright purposes?Is an Internet posting of a work a world-wide publication for copyright purposes?



Is a work published worldwide for copyright purposes when it is posted on a publically available internet web site? That issue was just canvassed by a US District Court in Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley2011WL 2223422 (S.D.Fla. Jun. 7, 2011). The Court ruled that making a music file available  on a website in Australia was an act tantamount to global and simultaneous publication of the work which brought the work within the definition of a “United States work” under § 101(1)(C) of the US Copyright Act.

Copyright law 2010 –the year in review in Canada and around the worldCopyright law 2010 –the year in review in Canada and around the world



Here is a copy of the slides I used today at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Intellectual Property Year in Review conference. The associated paper prepared in collaboration with Glen Bloom, and with the help of others, is available here.

My slides summarize the following copyright cases from Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, Singapore, Europe and the USA:

Canada

Alberta (Education) v Access Copyright 2010 FCA 198

Bell Canada v SOCAN (Tariff 22) 2010 FCA 220

Canadian Private Copying Collective v.