No Infringement in Music File Sharing, Federal Court of Canada Rules in Copyright Case

1
NOINFRINGEMENTINMUSICFILESHARING,FEDERALCOURTOFCANADA
RULESINCOPYRIGHTCASE

BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
Canada’sFederalCourtrecentlyruledthatplacingacopyofadownloaded
songonashareddirectoryinacomputerwherethatcopycanbeaccessed
viaapeer-to-peerfilesharingprogramdoesnotamounttodistributionofthat
copysoastoconstituteinfringementofcopyrightunderCanada’sCopyright
Act,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-42.(BMGCanadaInc.etal.v.JohnDoe,2004FC488
(March31,2004,vonFinckenstein,J.;appealfiledonApril13,2004)).
OnMarch12,2004,membersofCanada’srecordingindustrybroughta
motionbeforeCanada’sFederalCourtseekingdisclosurefromfiveCanadian
internetserviceproviders(ISPs)oftheidentityofindividualswho,asallegedby
plaintiffs,have”infringedcopyrightlawsbyillegallytradinginmusic
downloadedfromtheinternet”.Accordingtoplaintiffs,thoseindividualswere
29internetusersoperatingunderpseudonymsassociatedwiththesoftware
theywereusing(forexampleGeekboy@KaZaA);theseindividualsalso
apparentlyusedInternetProtocoladdresses(IPaddresses)registeredwiththe
aforementionedfiveISPs.ThroughtheirmotionagainsttherespondentISPs,
plaintiffsthussoughtanordertocompelsuchISPstodisclosethenamesof
thoseindividualsusingthose29IPaddresses.
Plaintiffsfurtherallegedthatthe29internetusershadeachdownloaded
morethan1,000songsoverwhichPlaintiffsclaimrightsunderCanada’s
CopyrightAct,ontotheirhomecomputers.Moreover,thoseindividuals
allegedlyusedpeer-to-peerfilesharingprograms(inthiscase,KaZaAand
iMesh)whichenableuserstoconnecttoapeer-to-peernetworkandmake
anysharedfilesavailablefortransfertoanyotheruserthatiscurrently
connectedtothesamepeer-to-peernetwork;theprogramsinquestionalso
providearangeofmeansthroughwhichausermaysearchthroughapool

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004*OfthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(April2004)4-4WorldE-Commerce&IPReport4-5underthetitle
MusicFileSharingDoesNotInfringe,FederalCourtSays.Publication274.16-BGA

2
ofsharedfiles(assuchprogramsweredescribedinMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Studios,Inc.v.Grokster,259F.Supp.2d1029(C.D.Cal.2003)andreferredto
bytheCourt).Plaintiffsallegedthatthisformoffilesharingconstitutedan
infringementoftheirrightsovercopyrightedmusicunderCanada’sCopyright
Act.
InordertoobtaintheirorderagainsttheISPs,plaintiffshadtoestablisha
primafaciecaseagainsttheunknownallegedwrongdoers.Inrulingthatthey
failedtomeettheircase,theCourtnotedthatthereweremanydeficiencies
intheprimafaciecaseadvancedbytheplaintiffs.Firstly,theaffidavit
evidencewasconsidereddeficientbytheCourtasitconstitutedlargelyof
hearsay.Forexample,theinformationregardingtheallegedfilesharing
activitiesofthe29unnamedinternetuserswasnotdescribedbythe
individualswhocarriedoutvariousinvestigationsattheplaintiffs’request,but
ratherbytheiremployerwhodescribedworkcarriedoutbyothers.

3
Secondly,theCourtfoundthattherewasnoevidenceofaconnection
betweenthepseudonymsallegedlyusedbythe29unnamedinternetusers
andtheIPaddresses.TheCourtfoundthattherewasnoclearevidenceasto
howthepseudonymsoftheKaZaAuserswerelinkedtoanIPaddress
identifiedthroughplaintiffs’investigations.Forexample,theCourtwantedto
knowhowthepseudonymGeekboy@KaZaAwaslinkedtoIPaddress
24.84.179.98.TheCourtfoundno”reliable”answertoitsquestion.
Thirdly,andmostimportantly,theCourtruledthatplaintiffsdidnotprovide
anyevidenceofcopyrightinfringementunderthecircumstances.Inrulingas
itdid,theCourtreliedonthespecificwordingfoundinCanada’sCopyright
Act.AscopyrightlawisstatutorylawinCanada,theCourtremindedthe
partiesthataplaintiffcanclaimcopyrightprotectiononlytotheextentthatit
issetforthinthestatute(CompoCo.v.BlueCrestMusicInc.,[1980]1S.C.R.
357).Thus,section80(1)oftheCopyrightActprovidesthattheactof
reproducingalloranysubstantialpartofamusicalworkembodiedinasound
recording…ontoanaudiorecordingmediumfortheprivateuseofthe
personwhomakesthecopydoesnotconstituteaninfringementofthe
copyrightinthemusicalwork,theperformer’sperformanceorthesound
recording.Thus,underthestatute,downloadingasongforpersonalusedoes
notamounttoinfringement.IntheCourt’sview,plaintiffsdidnotprovideany
evidencethatthe29unnamedindividualseitherdistributedorauthorizedthe
reproductionofanysoundrecording.Theevidencesimplyrevealedthat
thoseindividualsonlyplacedpersonalcopiesintotheirshareddirectories
whichwereaccessiblebyanothercomputerviaapeer-to-peerservice.This
scenariodidnotamounttoauthorizinginfringement.Likealibrarythatplaces
aphotocopymachineinaroomfullofcopyrightedmaterial,theCourtfound
thatthecomputeruserthatplacesapersonalcopyofasongonashared
directorylinkedtoapeer-to-peerservicecannotbeseenasauthorizing
infringement.
Ontheissueofauthorization,Canada’sSupremeCourtrecentlywroteinCCH
CanadaLtd.v.LawSocietyofCanada,2004SCC13:””Authorize”meansto
“sanction,approveandcountenance”:MuzakCorp.v.Composers,Authors
andPublishersAssociationofCanadaLtd.,[1953]2S.C.R.182,atp.193;De
Tervagnev.Beloeil(Town),[1993],3F.C.227(F.C.T.D.).Countenanceinthe
contextofauthorizingcopyrightinfringementmustbeunderstoodinits
strongestdictionarymeaning,namely,”giveapprovalto,sanction,permit,
favour,encourage”:seeTheNewShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary(1993),vol.
1,atp.526.Authorizationisaquestionoffactthatdependsonthe
circumstancesofeachparticularcaseandcanbeinferredfromactsthatare
lessthandirectandpositive,includingasufficientdegreeofindifference:CBS
Inc.v.AmesRecords&TapesLtd.,[1981]2AllE.R.812(Ch.D.),atpp.823-24.
However,apersondoesnotauthorizeinfringementbyauthorizingthemere

4
useofequipmentthatcouldbeusedtoinfringecopyright.Courtsshould
presumethatapersonwhoauthorizesanactivitydoessoonlysofarasitisin
accordancewiththelaw:Muzak,supra.Thispresumptionmayberebuttedif
itisshownthatacertainrelationshipordegreeofcontrolexistedbetweenthe
allegedauthorizerandthepersonswhocommittedthecopyright
infringement:Muzak,supra;DeTervagne,supra:seealso,J.S.McKeown,Fox
CanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,4thed.(looseleaf),atp.
21-104andP.D.Hitchcock,”HomeCopyingandAuthorization”(1983),67
C.P.R.(2d)17,atpp.29-33.”
TheCourtfoundthatthe”merefactofplacingacopy(ofasong)ona
shareddirectoryinacomputerwherethatcopycanbeaccessed”viaa
peer-to-peerservicedoesnotamounttodistribution.Fordistributiontooccur,
theremustbeapositiveactbytheowneroftheshareddirectory(for
example,sendingoutcopies)whichwasfoundtobelackinghere.Plaintiffs’
motionwasthereforerejected.Inreachingitsdecision,theCourtalsoraised
privacyconcerns.
ThefindingmadebytheCourtastotheabsenceofevidenceofcopyright
infringementunderthecircumstancesisbasedonthewordingofastatute.If
Canada’sCopyrightActdoesnotspecificallyprovideforaright,thennone
canbefoundorgrantedbyaCourt.TheCourt’sdecisionshouldnotbeseen
asacommentonthe”morality”oftheactivitiescomplainedofbythe
plaintiffsbutratherasanacknowledgementofthepresent-daylimitations
foundinCanada’sCopyrightAct,regardingnewtechnologiesandtheway
theyaffectprivateuse.

5

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.

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