Federal Appeal Court Upholds Tariff 24 for Ringtones

FEDERALAPPEALCOURTUPHOLDSTARIFF24FORRINGTONES

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDKARINEJARRY*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
PRECIS:TheFederalCourtofAppealhasconfirmedthatthetransmissionofringtones
bywirelesscarrierstotheircustomersisacommunicationtothepublicby
telecommunicationwithinthemeaningofSection3(1)(f)oftheCopyrightAct.The
appellantshadarguedthatringtonesbeingtransmittedtocustomerswerenot
communicatedtothepublicsincetransmissionoccurredonaone-to-onebasis.
InCanadianWirelessTelecommunicationsAssociationvSocietyofComposers,Authors
andMusicPublishersofCanadatheFederalCourtofAppealhasconfirmedadecisionby
theCopyrightBoardstatingthatringtonessoldbywirelesscarriersontheirwebsites
qualifyasacommunicationtothepublicwithinthemeaningofSection3(1)(f)ofthe
CopyrightAct,thuswarrantingaseparateroyaltytobepaidinadditiontothatbeingpaid
forreproductionrightsofmusicalworks.Theappellantshadsoughtjudicialreviewofa
certificationbytheCopyrightBoardofaStatementofRoyaltiesentitled“SOCANTariff
24-Ringtones(2003-2005)”onthepremisethatTariff24isnotauthorizedbythe
CopyrightAct.(see“CopyrightBoardrulesonringtonetariffs”)
Compensationforthereproductionofmusicalworksusedforringtonesisthesubjectof
contractswithcollectingsocieties(ie,theCanadianMusicalReproductionRightsAgency
LimitedandtheSocietyforReproductionRightsofAuthors,ComposersandPublishersin
Canada).
AswasestablishedinBishopvStevens
,therighttoreproducemusicalworksandtheright
tocommunicatethemtothepublicareseparatestatutoryrightsaccordingtotheCopyright
Act.
Tariff24isdesignedtocompensateauthors,composersandpublishersinCanadaforthe
communicationofamusicalworktothepublicbytelecommunication,arightnotcovered



















































©CIPS,2008.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.,
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.KarineJarryisanarticling
studentwiththefirm.PublishedintheFebruary2008issueofWorldCopyrightLawReport.
Publication328.040.

2
byreproductionrightsagreements.TheCopyrightBoard’sdecisionwasbasedonthe
interpretationthatthetransmissionofamusicalringtoneisthefinalstepina
communicationtothepublicbytelecommunicationandthusisincludedinSection3(1)(f)
oftheCopyrightAct.Ifthisinterpretationisrulednottobevalid,thenTariff24isnot
permittedwithintheactandtheboard’sdecisioncannotbeupheld.
Section3(1)(f)reads,inpart,asfollows:
“3.(1)Forthepurposesofthisact,“copyright”,inrelationtoawork,meansthe
solerighttoproduceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofinany
materialformwhatever,toperformtheworkoranysubstantialpartthereofin
publicor,iftheworkisunpublished,topublishtheworkoranysubstantialpart
thereof,andincludesthesoleright
[…]
(f)inthecaseofanyliterary,dramatic,musicalorartisticwork,tocommunicate
theworktothepublicbytelecommunication,
[…]
andtoauthorizeanysuchacts.”
Theactdefines‘musicalwork’as“anyworkofmusicormusicalcomposition,withor
withoutwords,andincludesanycompilationthereof”.‘Telecommunication’isdefined
as“anytransmissionofsigns,signals,writing,imagesorsoundsorintelligenceof
anynaturebywire,radio,visual,opticalorotherelectromagneticsystem”.
Theappellantsbasedtheirrequestforreviewontwoalternativearguments:thefirstbeing
thatringtonetransmissionsarenotcommunications,andsecondthattheyarenot
communicationstothepublic,thusmakingTariff24inapplicablebecauseitisnotcovered
bySection3(1)(f).Theappellantsarguedthatatransmissionofringtonesisnotthesame
asacommunication,asdefinedinSection3(1)(f),inthatatransmissionshouldbe
interpretedasacommunicationonlywhenitcanbe“heardorperceivedby[the]recipient
simultaneouslywithorimmediatelyuponthetransmission”.
Thecourtrejectedthisargument,statingthatitgaveatoonarrowdefinitionoftheword
‘communication’.Asstatedbythecourt:“inthecontextofawirelesstransmission,itisthe
receiptofthetransmissionthatcompletesthecommunication”.
Theappellantsalternativelyarguedthatthetransmissionofringtoneswasnota
communicationtothepublicsincethecustomerspurchasedanddownloadedthe
ringtonesonaone-to-onebasis.Theappellantsarguedthat,nomatterhowmany
communicationstherewere,thetransmissionsshouldbeviewedassingularprivate
communications.
Thecourtrejectedthissecondargumentbydrawingacomparisonwithatelevision
transmission,whichisconsideredtobea‘publicperformance’eventhoughnobodymight
bewatchingatthetimeofthetransmissionanditcanbeviewedintheprivacyofthe

3
user’shome.Sinceitis“madeavailabletoasufficientlylargeanddiversegroupof
people”simultaneouslyandisnotmadeinaconcealedorprivateway,itisconsidereda
publiccommunication.Similarly,theringtonesbeingmadeavailablesimultaneouslytoa
largeanddiversegroupofpeoplequalifiesthemtobeconsideredascommunicationsto
thepublicinthatthetransmissionhasasufficientdegreeofopenness.
Therefore,theFederalCourtofAppealupheldtheCopyrightBoard’sdecisiontocertify
Tariff24,whichimposesasecondroyaltyforringtonesascommunicationstothepublic
ofmusicworksinaccordancewithSection3(1)(f)oftheCopyrightAct.

4
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD