factum of the intervener - u of teachers

8/3/2019 Factum of the Intervener - U of Teachers

1/17

Court File No.: 33800

BETWEEN:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)

SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS ANDMUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA

- and-

APPELLANT

BELL CANADA, THE CANADIAN RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, APPLECANADA INC., ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC., ROGERS WIRELESSPARTNERSHIP, SHAW CABLESYSTEMS G.P., TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC.,ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWAREASSOCIATION OF CANADA and CMRRNSODRAC INC. RESPONDENTS

SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PUBLICINTEREST CLINIC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS,FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA AND CANADIAN LEGALINFORMATION INSTITUTE AND COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONSINDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONINTERVENERS

FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER,CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

Torys LLP79 Wellington Street West, Suite 3000Box 270, TD CentreToronto, ON M5K 1N2Wendy MathesonAndrew BernsteinTel: (416) 865.0040Fax: (416) 865-7380E-mail: [email protected] for the Intervener,Canadian Association of University Teachers

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLPSuite 1900, 340 Albert StreetOttawa, ON K1R 7Y6Patricia J. WilsonTel: (613) 235-7234Fax: (613) 235-2867E-mail: [email protected] Agent for the Intervener,Canadian Association of University Teachers


2/17

TO:AND TO:

REGISTRARMatthew S. EstabrooksGilles M. DaigleD. Lynne WattGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP2600-160 Elgin StreetBox 466 StnAOttawa, ON KIP lC3Tel: (613) 786-0159Fax: (613) 788-3451Counsel for the Appellant

COPY TO: Gerald L. (JAY) Kerr-WilsonAnneKo

Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP55 Metcalfe StreetSuite 1300Ottawa, ON KIP 6L5Tel: (613) 236-3882Fax: (613) 230-6423Counsel for the Respondents,Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Inc.,Rogers Wireless Partership,

AND TO:

Shaw Cablesystems G.P.,Telus Communications Inc.Glen A. BloomOsler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP340 Albert StreetSuite 1900Ottawa, ON KIR 7Y6Tel: (613) 787-1073Fax: (613) 235-2867Counsel for the Respondent,Canadian Recording IndustryAssociation

Patricia J. WilsonOsler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP340 Albert StreetSuite 1900Ottawa, ON KIR 7Y6Tel: (613) 787-1009Fax: (613) 235-2867Counsel for the Respondent,Canadian Recording IndustryAssociation


3/17

AND TO: Casey M. Chi sick Eugene Meehan, Q.C.Tim PinosCassels Brock & Blackwell LLP McMillian LLPScotia Plaza 50 O'Connor Street2100 - 40 King Street West Suite 300Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 Ottawa, ON KIP 6L2Tel: (416) 869-5403 Tel: (613) 232-7171Fax: (416) 644-9326 Fax: (613) 231-3191Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent,CMRRAlSODRAC Inc. CMRRAlSODRAC Inc.

AND TO: Barry B. Sookman Colin S. BaxterSteven G. MasonDaniel GloverMcCarthy Tetrault LLP Cavanagh Williams ConwayP.O. Box 48, Suite 4700 Baxter LLPT-D Bank Tower 1111 Prince ofWales DriveToronto-Dominion Centre Suite 401Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2Tel: (416) 601-7949 Tel: (613) 569-8558Fax: (416) 868-0673 Fax: (613) 569-8668Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent,Entertainment Software Entertainment SoftwareAssociation, Entertainment Association, EntertainmentSoftware Association ofCanada Software Association of Canada

AND TO: Michael Koch Douglas BrownGoodmans LLP Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLPBarristers and Solicitors 50 O'Connor, Suite 1500333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Ottawa, ON KIP 6L2Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Tel: (613) 231-8210Tel: (416) 979-2211 Fax: (613) 788-3661Fax: (416) 979-1234 Agent for the Respondent, AppleCounsel for the Respondent, Canada Inc.Apple Canada Inc.


4/17

AND TO:

AND TO:

AND TO:

David FewerUniversite d'OttawaCentre for Law, Technologyand innovation (CIPPIC)57 Louis Pasteur St.Ottawa, ON KIN 6N5Tele: (613) 562-5800 Ext. 2558Fax: (613) 562-5417Counsel for the Intervener,Samuelson-Glushko CanadianInternet Policy and PublicInterest Clinic

Ronald E. DimockBruce W. StrattonSangeetha PunniyamoorthyDimock Stratton3202 - 20 Queen Street WestBox 102Toronto, ON M5H 3R3Tel: (416) 971-7202Fax: (416) 971-6638Counsel for the Intervener,Federation ofLaw Societies ofCanada and Canadian LegalInformation InstituteAndrea RushBrad ElbergCharlene LipchenHeenan Blaikie LLPSuite 2600, P.O. Box 185Royal Bank Plaza, South TowerToronto, OntarioM5J 2J4Tel: (416) 360-3541Fax: (416) 360-8425Counsel for the Intervener,Computer & CommunicationsIndustry Association

John S. Macera

Macera & Jaryna1200 - 427 Laurier Avenue WestOttawa, OntarioKIR 7Y2Tel: (613) 238-8173Fax: (613) 235-2508Agent for the Intervener,Federation ofLaw Societies ofCanada and Canadian LegalInformation Institute

Sylvian Rouleau

Heenan Blaikie LLP55 Metcalfe StreetSuite 300Ottawa, OntarioKIP 6L5Tel: (613) 236-1668Fax: (613) 236-9632Agent for the Intervener,Computer & CommunicationsIndustry Association


5/17

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

PART I - OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE ............................................................................................ 1PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................... 2

Interpretation of Research ................................................................................................... 2Fairness Factors ................................................................................................................... 6Fair dealing not constrained by international obligations ................................................... 7Conclusion .................................................................................................................. ....... 10

PART IV - SUBMISSION ON COSTS ................................................................................... 10PART V - RELIEF REQUESTED .......................................................................................... 10PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ 11PART VII - STATUTES RELIED ON ....................... ............................................................ 12


6/17

- 1 -

PART I - OVERVIEW1. The Canadian Association ofUniversity Teachers is the national voice for college anduniversity academics - people extensively involved with research. CAUT has intervened in thiscase to assist the Court with the interpretation of research in the fair dealing exception under theCopyright Act, as well as some related aspects of the fairness test. CAUT seeks to assist theCourt in considering the potential ramifications of its decision about fair dealing beyond thespecific facts of this case.2. Research is not just an activity engaged in by experts through a systematic inquiry for thepurpose ofproving or disproving a hypothesis or creating a new work. Research can be done bypeople without any special expertise, such as students just beginning to explore a new subject. Itcan involve gathering random, disjunctive facts, unsystematically. It can lead to conclusions, orcreations of new works, or it can be a long road to nowhere. Whatever its outcome in aparticular case, a large and liberal interpretation of research for the purposes of fair dealingfosters the creation, use and dissemination of knowledge, in the public interest.3. A broad interpretation of "research" in s. 29 not only serves the purposes of theCopyright Act, it is necessary to give the breathing space needed to advance the goals of the fairdealing exception for research. It is necessary to ensure balance between rights of users andrights of owners under the Act. To narrow fair dealing, as proposed by the appellant, woulddisturb that balance. It would turn a broad public user right into a narrow, specialized privilege.There is no reason to do so.

PART II - QUESTION IN ISSUE4. CAUT will address these three aspects of the arguments advanced on this appeal:

(a) why research should be given a large and liberal interpretation;(b) how the amount of the dealing and the commercial nature of the activity should

be considered when evaluating certain of the fairness factors; and(c) why the Court should reject the invitations to roll back CCHbased on the "three

step test" under international instruments.


7/17

- 2 -

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTInterpretation of Research5. The interpretation of "research" must accord with the purpose of the fair dealingexception within the statutory scheme, which is to balance the rights of users and owners underthe Act. As a result, fair dealing, including the meaning of research, must be given a large andliberal interpretation and not the narrow restrictive meaning that SOCAN suggests.6. The purposes of he CopyrightAct The central goals of the CopyrightAct are toencourage the creation and the dissemination of literary, artistic and other works, as well asproviding ajust reward to their creators. The Act 's principal tool to accomplish these goals is togrant several exclusive rights to creators, including a limited statutory monopoly over thereproduction and performance of their works.

Society ofComposers, Authors and Music Publishers ofCanada v.Canadian Association of nternet Providers [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427,2004 SCC 45 at para. 50 [SOCAN v. CAIP}7. Fair dealing is an exception to this statutory monopoly. Under fair dealing, which isproperly considered a user right, users may copy works without infringing copyright so long asthey are engaging in research or private study and they deal with the works in a manner that isfair. Fair dealing serves the purposes of the Act by encouraging dissemination of information,knowledge and ideas, and can (although need not) lead to the creation of new works.

CCH Canadian v. Law Society ofUpper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R.339; 2004 SCC 13 at para. 488. As the respondents Apple and Bell explain in more detail, the dual purposes of the Actand the role of fair dealing in encouraging the dissemination ofworks provide ample justificationfor a large and liberal definition of research in the context of fair dealing. However, there arefurther important reasons arising from fair dealings' role in the statutory regime.9. Fair dealing is an essential counterbalance to the exclusive copyright regime. The right isintended to blunt the sharp edges of the monopoly the Act provides to copyright owners, byproviding breathing space for the use of works for particular purposes.


8/17

- 3 -

10. Fair dealing recognizes that the social value of works will be limited if they simplyaccumulate in a library or archive. The value of works arises when people read, listen to, look atand watch them. These people are the "users" and it is user rights - fair dealing being the mostcrucial - that need to be balanced against the rights of creators and owners of copyrighted works.This is not necessarily because every user will become a creator, but because the very purpose ofworks - their ultimate value - is that they are used. It is for this reason that fair dealing and otheruser's rights are "not just loopholes." It is only through ensuring robust rights for users that theAct can be given a "fair and balanced reading," ensuring the Act serves its statutory purposes,while preserving the breathing space that fair dealing permits. Balance requires that research begiven a large and liberal interpretation.

CCHCanadian at para. 4811. Permitting many different types of uses to constitute research encourages new solutionsto problems through the use of new ideas, methods, tools and technology. It also ensures thatunorthodox or untested methods are not inhibited by the Copyright Act. What constitutesresearch necessarily evolves as both technology and modes of analysis are developed over time.Indeed, challenging the boundaries ofwhat is conventionally considered to be research is anessential activity of academics and historically has been at the root of innovation and progress.12. The Internet era has made a broad definition of research even more crucial to preservingbalance between users and owners. This Court has recognized that "[t]he capacity of the Internetto disseminate "works of the arts and intellect" is one of the great innovations of the informationage." However, while a user might use more traditional forms of works (e.g., books) withoutimplicating the rights in the Copyright Act, the Internet and related technology rely on thedissemination of digital copies ofworks, even for uses that do not seriously impact the economicinterests of copyright holders. This is apparent from the facts of this case, where the previews atissue replace listening to music at the store before buying it.

SOCAN v. CAlP at para. 4013. Finally, even a broad definition of research cannot seriously detract from owners' rights.Whether or not a use is research does not finally determine whether or not it constitutes fair


9/17

- 4 -

dealing. It must also be fair. Conversely, defining research too narrowly will have a seriousimpact on user's rights because it forecloses the activity, even if it has no impact on owners'rights. It precludes the application of the fairness factors to all the uses that fall outside thenarrow definition of research.14. In sum, as the Court indicated in CCH, research under s. 29 must be given a large andliberal interpretation. Fair dealing encourages the creation and dissemination of works, thecentral purposes of the statutory monopoly under the Copyright Act. It also ensures that users'rights under the Act are in balance with owners' rights. Whether or not a particular useconstitutes research is a threshold question for fair dealing. As a result, an overly narrowdefinition will preclude the use of the balancing factors to determine fairness, and skew thebalance away from users, and toward owners, upsetting the balance under the Act.

CCH Canadian at para. 5115. Broad definition of research precludes SOCAN's definition. The importance of fairdealing to the creation, use and dissemination of works means that SOCAN's definition ofresearch must be rejected. SOCAN suggests that research be defined as "the systematicinvestigation into and study ofmaterials and sources in order to establish facts and reach newconclusions, " and requires that research always be directed towards the creation of a new work.This definition adds requirements outside the common-sense understanding of the word. Itignores legitimate uses of works, in favour of formalistic requirements.16. There are four obvious problems with SOCAN's definition of research:

a) The requirement of systematic investigation ignores the reality that research canbe conducted in other ways. It could involve a systematic inquiry, but may alsobe done informally or unsystematically, or through innovation, in new ways notyet contemplated. Unorthodox or innovative methods may lead to breakthroughsin our understanding of the world, and should fall within "research" in the fairdealing exception.

b) The requirement that research reach new conclusions suggests that earlyexploratory research (for example, to formulate hypotheses, or gain inspiration),


10/17

- 5 -

or late-stage confirmatory research (where the conclusion has already beenreached, but is being tested or confirmed) are excluded from the scope of fairdealing, which cannot be justified.

c) The requirement that the activity be focused on establishing/acts, excluding otherresearch goals such as reaching or testing beliefs, opinions or theories. Thisrestriction excludes many modes of academic and other types of research.

d) The proposed requirement that research must lead to the creation of a new work,which ignores realistic and fair ways in which users can and should be able to useworks, even if they never lead to the creation of a new copyrightable work.

17. The definition of "research" under s. 29 needs to be robust, to include the process ofsearching, investigating, inquiring, studying, observing or experimenting. It needs to beforward-looking, and therefore should not exclude novel or unorthodox methods. It shouldaccommodate many different objectives, such as reaching conclusions, making decisions,developing theories, formulating hypotheses, confirming others' conclusions, or simply learningfor its own sake. Finally, there is no reason why it has to be directed towards the creation of anew work, for reasons discussed below.

18. No new work required SOCAN proposes to limit research to uses directed to thecreation of new works. This is misguided. Not only does it run counter to the purposes offairdealing - including, most crucially providing breathing space for users of works and balancingowners' rights with users' rights - it would also lead to absurd results.19. Some examples of uses ofworks that should meet the definition of research, but would beexcluded by SOCAN because they are not necessarily directed to creation of new works includethe following activities:

a) a doctor who is faced with a difficult clinical case and photocopies part of areference textbook to take home and read for the purpose of investigating the caseand providing a diagnosis;


11/17

- 6 -

b) a science professor who copies a series of journal articles to evaluate whether theexperiments they describe are reproducible; and,

c) a lawyer who copies a couple of case comments and headnotes of cases from alaw library for the purpose of rendering a verbal opinion to a client.

20. These examples, which are all normally considered research, do not necessarily involvecreating a new work. There is no reason to impose an arbitrary "new work" requirement.21. u.s. fair use does not require transformative uses. Finally, SOCAN is wrong tosuggest that, under American law, only "transformative" uses can benefit from the fair useexception. One of the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal opinions on fair use, Sony v. Universal CityStudios, involved a decidedly non-transformative use, VCR time-shifting (i.e., recordingtelevision shows to be watched at a different time than they are broadcast), which was found tobe fair use. While the transformative nature of a use is a factor that the U.S. courts consider, it isnot a requirement for fair use.

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) at 455-6;Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) at 579

Fairness Factors22. While CAUT does not propose to deal with all of the fairness factors, which arecomprehensively addressed by Apple and Bell, it does seek to respond to two issues: (1)aggregation in the amount of the dealing; and, (2) the commercial nature of the research at issue.23. Aggregation is not appropriate. SOCAN argues that, because the amount of previewedmusic on iTunes apparently exceeds the amount of downloaded music, there can be no fairdealing. There are two obvious problems with this argument. First, it makes fair dealingessentially unworkable in practice. Second, the concern that aggregation attempts to raise (thatthe fair dealing will "swamp" the paid uses) is already dealt with by the fairness factors.24. Consider a professor who photocopies journal articles to take home and read for a papershe is writing. Whether or not this constitutes fair dealing should not depend on an analysis ofthe total amount of photocopying from those journals by everyone who makes copies, comparedto their paid circulation in a given year. The professor cannot know these facts in advance, or


12/17

- 7 -

perhaps at all, and therefore is left in a permanent state of uncertainty regarding whether she canmake the copies to further her research. Indeed, the very same activity might be fair dealing oneyear and rendered unfair in a different year, as these aggregate figures change. The amount ofthe photocopying, to the extent it may be relevant, should be considered on the basis ofindividual use only.25. An aggregate analysis may show an adverse impact on the market for the work. Eventhen, this is but one factor and not determinative. The textured nature of fair dealing is verydifferent than pointing to comparative numbers and suggesting that their sheer quantities shoulddetermine the outcome of the analysis.26. Commercial nature ofresearch just one consideration. SOCAN also argues that theCourt should consider the commercial purpose of the previews at issue in this case. However, itdoes not go so far as suggesting that this will be determinative, nor should it be. Research isoften done for a commercial purpose, or with an ultimate motive of commercial gain. It can beconducted with financial support. It can be conducted by industry. It can be conducted usingcommercially-available tools offered by a for-profit enterprise. None of these activities shouldbe foreclosed from fair dealing simply because of their commercial aspect - the answer shouldand will lie in the balance of all the factors under the fairness analysis.Fair dealing no t constrained by international obligations27. Canada's international obligations neither require the Court to narrow the scope offairdealing, nor determine the outcome in this case. CSI's and CRIA's arguments rely heavily onthe "three-step test" under various international instruments, as interpreted by a single WTOpanel considering a very different exception. Even on the panel 's analysis, a large and liberaldefinition of fair dealing under s. 29 of the Act is consistent with the three-step test. However,CSI and CRIA overstate the effect of the WTO panel's decision, and fail to recognize the moreliberal, but equally authoritative, interpretations of these international instruments.

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of ntellectual Property Rights,April 15, 1994, 1869 UNTS 299, 33 ILM 1197 (1994) [TRIPs], art. 3Berne Convention for the Protection ofLiterary andArtisticWorks, 1971, 111 UNTS 30, s. 9(2)


13/17

- 8 -

United States - Section 110(5) of he US Copyright Act (2000),WTO Doc WT/DS160/R (Panel Report)28. Consistent with the Three-Step Test. Even if the Court accepted the submission that thethree-step test must be employed strictly, the fair dealing exception articulated in CCH fitscomfortably within it. Fair dealing as interpreted in CCH already encompasses only (1) "certainspecial cases" that (2) "do not conflict with a normal exploitation o/the worlC'; and (3) "do notunreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of he rights holder."29. CRlA and CSI wrongly suggest that "research" must be defined narrowly to ensure that itconstitutes a "certain special case." Research is not an exception to copyright, and thereforeneed not comply with the three step test. The exception is fair dealing as a whole. The rightquestion is, therefore, whether fair dealing is a "certain special case." It is.30. Uses that both constitute research and are fair are "certain special cases," even using theWTO panel's definition, which provides that the nature of the exception be clearly defined, havea distinct objective and not overwhelm the non-exceptional uses. Fair dealing for the purpose ofresearch, as defined by this Court in CCH, meets all of these criteria.

WTO Decision at paras. 6.108-6.113; CCH Canadian at paras. 48-6031. Fair dealing also complies with the second and third stages of the test: not interferingwith normal exploitation of the work and not unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests ofrights holders. In fact, the six fairness factors from CCH internalize these very questions, byrequiring the court to consider the nature of the dealing, the alternatives to the dealing and theeffect of the dealing on the work.32. This is well-demonstrated by the facts of this case. While CSI argues that "there is nodoubt that previews have value," the record establishes exactly the opposite. The CopyrightBoard found that even if the previews at issue did not constitute fair dealing, they would awardzero royalties for previews. This finding suggests that previews neither interfere with the normalexploitation of the work nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of rights holders.

Copyright Board Decision, para. 159, Appellant 's Record, pp. 55-56


14/17

- 9 -

33. These international instruments provide no reason to retract users' rights in the waySOCAN, CRIA and CSI have suggested. Further, and as described below, there is good reasonto conclude that the three-step test is not nearly as strict as these parties suggest.

34. WTO Panel's decision not afinal authority on meaning o/TRIPS. The Court is notbound by the single WTO panel's interpretation of the scope of permitted exceptions tocopyright. It is not even binding on subsequent WTO panels, let along this Court. Indeed, thepanel's decision has been criticized, and different national courts have provided differentinterpretations to the test, leading one writer to conclude "[w]hat these cases suggest is that the"three-step test" is (at least as currently understood) much too crude a tool to function as a usefulmethod of determining the appropriate answer to questions about the application of copyrightexceptions in novel situations."

Griffiths, J., "The "Three-Step Test" in European Copyright Law-Problems and Solutions", Queen Mary University ofLondon,School ofLaw, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 31/2009, p. 1835. The WTO treaty - TRIPS - expressly recognizes that the three-step test is not intended toupset the balance between users and owners in copyright law. The objective ofTRIPS, set out inArticle 7, state that "[t]he protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights shouldcontribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination oftechnology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in amanner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations."

TRIPs, art. 736. A group of high-profile copyright scholars, having carefully considered the three-steptest, stated that "[l]imitations and exceptions [to copyright] are the most important legalinstrument for reconciling copyright with the individual and collective interests of the generalpublic [i.e., users]." As a result, they have advocated that "[i]n determining the scope ofapplication of limitations and exceptions, the Three-Step Test should not take into account onlythe interests of right holders." As one of them stated, it was always intended to "beuncontroversial" and to "accommodate the whole range of exceptions in existing national laws... serving only to preclude the most obviously wholesale destruction of the reproduction right at


15/17

- 10 -

national level." Indeed, the Three-Step Test itself contains qualifiers - "normal exploitation","legitimate interest" and "unreasonable prejudice" - intended to provide flexibility for countriesand their courts to determine the scope of limitations and exceptions.

ConclusionGriffiths, p. 21; Geiger, "Declaration: A balanced interpretation ofthe "three-step" test in Copyright Law," (2008) IIC 707 at 709

37. CAUT urges the Court to confirm fair dealing as a user's right that must be interpreted ina large and liberal manner. It should reject the notion that fair dealing, or research, mustsomehow be confined to professionals using traditional, formal methods to create new works."Research" should include the engineering professor who might copy journal articles to researcha new type of engine, and a member of the public who might copy newspaper articles, or printout websites, to research which car to buy. Whatever the outcome of any particular case, a largeand liberal interpretation of research fosters the creation, use and dissemination ofknowledge, inthe public interest. A narrow definition of fair dealing would turn a broad public user right into anarrow, specialized privilege.

PART IV - SUBMISSION ON COSTS38. CAUT does not seek costs and asks that no costs be awarded against it.

PART V - RELIEF REQUESTED,39. CAUT respectfully requests that it be permitted to make oral submissions at the hearing.

July 28,2011 WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Of counsel for the Intervener,Canadian Association ofUniversity Teachers


16/17

- 11 -

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIESAuthority Citing

ParagraphsCases1. Society ofComposers, Authors and Music Publishers of 6, 12Canada v. Canadian Association of nternet Providers[2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 452. CCH Canadian v. Law Society ofUpper Canada, [2004] 1 7, 10, 14S.C.R. 339; 2004 SCC 133. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 21(1984)4. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) 21Legislation5. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of ntellectual Property 27,35Rights, April 15, 1994, 1869 UNTS 299, 33 ILM 1197(1994)6. Berne Convention for the Protection ofLiterary andArtistic 27Works, 1971, 111 UNTS 30, s. 9(2)7. United States - Section 110(5) of he US Copyright Act 27(2000), WTO Doc WT/DS160/R (Panel Report)Secondary Sources8. Griffiths, J., "The "Three-Step Test" in European Copyright 34, 36

Law - Problems and Solutions", Queen Mary University ofLondon, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No.3112009 .

9. Geiger, "Declaration: A balanced interpretation of the 36"three-step" test in Copyright Law," (2008) lIC 707


17/17

- 12 -

PART VII - STATUTES RELIED ON

Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, s. 2929. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringecopyright.29. L'utilisation equitable d'une oeuvre ou de tout autre objet du droit d'auteauraux fins d'etude privee ou de recherche ne constitue pas une violation du droitd'auteur.

factum of the intervener - u of teachers

Documents