• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

I Swear – I never inhaled!

November 2, 2008 by Erin Bobkin

Is online music downloading to the new millennium what marijuana was to the 1960s?  It seems like nearly everyone is doing it and most have some way of legitimizing it. 

However, unlike marijuana, Canadian law has been seemingly unclear on the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing – until now.  In July of this year, Justice Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court issued a permanent injunction closing QuebecTorrent.com.  Arguably, this is the most concrete answer that Canada has had on downloading yet.  And the answer is not in favour of users.

Copyright owners and their supporters, like the Canadian Recording Industry Association, are championing the decision as a major victory for protection of copyright.  But users, like site operator Sebastien Brulotte, feel that they are on the losing end.  The losing end, according to Brulotte, of “a failing system.”[1]

If the purpose of the copyright regime is to balance the promotion of creation and dissemination of creative works with the need to reward authors of the work, can we condone online downloading?  On a strict construction of the law, it seems like downloading is infringement: copying a substantial part of a work.  And on a narrow construction of fair dealing, downloading seems not to fit in.  Even I find it hard to call listening to my iPod ‘private study.’

But, looking to the purpose of the copyright scheme and recent judicial decisions, it might be possible to view downloading in a different light.  It seems to me that what users are saying is that they are tired of paying big corporations for the right to listen to music.  As Brulotte states: “I am not doing this to harm the little artists.  It’s just that I find the big machines behind them are making too much profit.”[2]  And I can’t say I disagree.  Do I really care if I cost Tommy Mottola a couple of bucks?  As a listener, and a musician, I want to support the artists I care about, but not necessarily the record companies behind them.

Some might say that the answer lies in applying the Supreme Court’s liberal approach to user rights as set out by CCH. [3] However, I would argue that the solution needs to go further than that.  While CCH addresses the important issue of users as rights-holders in the intellectual property scheme, it doesn’t go far enough.  What needs to be addressed are the fundamental inequalities in the copyright system itself.  For example, creators of copyright rarely have the power to maintain copyright over their work. Additionally, users are thought of as nothing more than cash cows to the companies who become owners of copyright.  Undoubtedly, if any change is going to come to this system, it needs to occur through legislation.  If a new copyright act can ever get passed, I hope it is one that takes these ideas into consideration.  But until then, I might keep downloading online- but don’t worry, I promise not to inhale.


[1]Graeme Hamilton, “Court orders Quebec file-sharing site shutdown” The National Post (11 July 2008), online:                                                                                                              <http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=648919>.

[2]Ibid.

[3]CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] S.C.J. 12 [CCH].

Posted in Copyright, Digital Downloads, Music Industry

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« CIRA’s ‘whois’ policy a stunning setback for privacy | What’s In a Name? That Which We Call a…Likeness »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736