Music File Sharing on the Internet is Still Legal, at Least for Now

1
MUSICFILESHARINGONTHEINTERNETISSTILLLEGAL,ATLEASTFORNOW

By
BobH.SotiriadisandFranceLessard
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001VictoriaSquare-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
Whetheryouseeitasanactofpiracyornot,musicfilesharingontheInternet
isacommonpractice.Itiseasilyavailableandcheapforthetimebeing,itis
notillegaleither.TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthatitwasnota
copyrightinfringementtoplaceacopyofadownloadedsonginacomputer
directorysharedwithothers,evenifthatcopycouldbeaccessedviaapeer-
to-peerservice.(BMGCanadaInc.etal.v.JohnDow(2004)F.C.488(March
31,2004,Finckenstein,J.))
ThePlaintiffsinthiscaseareallmembersofCanada’srecordingindustry.They
institutedanactionagainstdifferentunknownDefendantswhoallegedly
infringedthecopyrightofthePlaintiffs’membersbyillegallytradingmusicfiles
downloadedfromtheInternet.Thetwenty-nineallegedinfringersoperated
ontheInternetunderpseudonymsandPlaintiffscouldnotidentifythem.The
PlaintiffsturnedtodifferentInternetserviceproviders(ISPs)andaskedthe
CourttoforcethoseISPstorevealthenamesandaddressesoftheaccount
holdersofspecificInternetprotocoladdresses(I.P.addresses)apparently
usedtocommittheinfringementallegedbythePlaintiffs.
The29Internetusersapparentlyeachdownloadedover1000songsontotheir
owncomputers.Thoseindividualsapparentlyusedpeer-to-peerfilesharing
programsenablinguserstoconnecttoapeer-to-peernetworkandrender
availablesharedfilestoanyotherusersconnectedtothesamenetwork.In
otherwords,theseInternetusersbasicallydownloadedtheirmusicfilesintoa
sharedlibraryalsoavailabletootherusers.ThePlaintiffsarguedthatthisform
ofmusicsharingconstitutedaninfringementoftheirrightsincopyrighted
musicundertheCanadianCopyrightAct.



















































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004.*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.;LawyerFranceLessardisamemberof
thesamefirms.PublishedintheissueofJuly2004ofMontrealBusinessMagazine.Publication
062.016E.

2
Firstofall,theCourtconsideredthattheevidencebroughtbythePlaintiffs
wasnotconclusiveandconstitutedlargelyofhearsay.Theaffidavitswere
providedbythepresidentofacompanywhichprovidesonlineandanti-
piracyprotection.Theinvestigationwashowevernotcarriedoutbythis
president,butbytheemployeesofthecompanywhocouldhaveprovided
theevidencethemselvesbasedontheirpersonalknowledge.Furthermore,
theevidencewasnotclearastohowthepseudonymsoftheInternetusers
werelinkedtothespecificI.P.addressesidentifiedbythePlaintiffs.Finally,it
wasquestionablefromtheevidencebroughtbytheISPsthattheinformation
soughtbythePlaintiffs,iftheorderwastobegranted,wouldbereliable.The
ISPsindicatedthattheinformationwouldnotonlybeverydifficultandtime
consumingtoobtain,buttherewasnocertaintyastothecorrectidentityof
theaccountholdersidentified,whocouldverywellnotbetheactual
computerusers.
Moreimportantly,theCourt’sdecisionturnedonthedefinitionsofthewords
“authorization”and“distribution”withrespecttocopyrightinfringement.In
rulingthatthePlaintiffsfailedtoprovideanyevidenceofcopyright
infringementunderthecircumstances,theCourtreliedonthefactthatthe
CopyrightLawisastatutorylawinCanada.Hence,aPlaintiffcanclaim
copyrightprotectiononlytotheextentprovidedforinthestatute.More
particularly,theCourtturnedtoSection80(1)oftheCopyrightActproviding
thatthe“actofreproducingalloranysubstantialpartofamusicalwork
embodiedinasoundrecording…ontoanaudiorecordingmediumforthe
privateuseofthepersonwhomakesthecopydoesnotconstitutean
infringementofthecopyrightinthemusicalwork,theperformer’s
performanceorthesoundrecording”.Inotherwords,downloadingasongfor
personaluseisnotcopyrightinfringementundertheAct.
TheCourtalsoconcludedthatthePlaintiffsdidnotprovideevidencethatthe
29Internetuserseitherdistributedor“authorized”thereproductionofany
copyrightedwork.Alltheevidencerevealedwasthattheindividualshad
placedtheirownpersonalcopiesintoashareddirectorywhichalso
happenedtobeaccessiblebyotherusersviaapeer-to-peerservice.The
CourtreliedontherecentdecisionoftheCanadianSupremeCourtinCCH
CanadaLtd.v.LawSocietyofCanada,(2004)S.C.C.13whichdefinesthe
word“authorize”as:“sanction,approveandcountenance”.CCHCanada
alsoestablishedthatsettingupthefacilitiestoallowcopyingwasnot
equivalenttoauthorizinginfringement.
TheCourtalsoconcludedthatthemerefactofplacingacopyonashared
directoryinacomputerwherethatcopycouldbeaccessedwasnot
“distribution”ascontemplatedbytheCopyrightAct.Toconstitute

3
distribution,thereshouldhavebeenapositiveactbytheowneroftheshared
directory.Forexample,sendingoutcopiesoradvertisingthatthemusicfiles
wereavailableforcopyingcouldhavebeenaformadistribution,butno
evidenceofsuchpositiveactwasputforwardbythePlaintiffs.
TheCourtalsoweighedthepublicinterestinfavourofdisclosureofprivacy
informationsuchasthenamesandaddressesofInternetusersandthose
Internetusers’legitimateprivacyconcerns.Sincetheinformationabouttobe
disclosedwasnotreliable,wasdifficulttoobtainandtherewasaserious
possibilityofaninnocentaccountholderbeingidentified,theCourtwasof
theviewthattheprivacyconcernsoutweighedthepublicinterestsinfavour
ofdisclosure.
TheCourt’sfindingisdeeplyroutedinthewordingofastatute,namelythe
CanadianCopyrightAct.Itsdecisiondoesnotapproveordisapproveofthe
activitiescomplainedofbythePlaintiffs,butratheracknowledgesthe
limitationsfoundinCanadianlegislationregardingnewtechnologies.The
CourtmadeaquickreferencetotheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization
PerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty,butcouldnotapplysamesinceithad
notbeenimplementedinCanadaandthereforedidnotformpartof
CanadianCopyrightLaw.Therealreadyispressureexercisedbylobbyistsfor
aratificationofthisInternationalConventionandthePlaintiffshavealready
appealedthedecisionoftheFederalCourt.
Although,musicfilesharinghasbeenfoundnottobeillegalbytheFederal
Court,thisisnottheendofthestory!

4

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD