https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/06/huge-win-for-copyright-user-rights-in-canada-federal-court-rules-digital-lock-rules-do-not-trump-fair-dealing/ Michael Geist [ ][Search] * About + Full CV + Photos + Contact * Writing + Books + Chapters + Scholarship + Columns + Columns Archive * Teaching + Regulation of Internet Commerce - January 2024 + Technology Law Internship * Speaking + Committees and Consultations + Keynote Speaking + Law Bytes Podcasts + Podcast Appearances + Video * Tech Law Topics + Bill C-10 + Copyright + Digital Tax + Digital Trade + Internet Governance + Jurisdiction + Lawful Access + Net Neutrality + Online Harms + Privacy + Surveillance + Telecom * Podcast * twitter * mastodon * mail * linkedin * feedburner * facebook * apple * spotify * google Username and password 20170626, Santeri Viinamaki, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons Username and password 20170626, Santeri Viinamaki, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons News Huge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada: Federal Court Rules Digital Lock Rules Do Not Trump Fair Dealing June 1, 2024 The Federal Court has issued a landmark decision (Blacklock's Reports v. Attorney General of Canada) on copyright's anti-circumvention rules which concludes that digital locks should not trump fair dealing. Rather, the two must co-exist in harmony, leading to an interpretation that users can still rely on fair dealing even in cases involving those digital locks. The decision could have enormous implications for libraries, education, and users more broadly as it seeks to restore the copyright balance in the digital world. The decision also importantly concludes that merely requiring a password does not meet the standard needed to qualify for copyright rules involving technological protection measures. If this all sounds technical, this post provides the necessary background and then reviews the decision. The enactment of the Copyright Modernization Act in 2012 was marked by a decade-long policy battle over how Canada would establish legal protections for digital locks as required by the WIPO Internet Treaties. Technically referred to as anti-circumvention measures, the rules provide legal protection against the circumvention of technologies such as anti-copying technology on e-books or DVDs that can be used to limit access or distribution of copyright works. The digital lock rules proved controversial around the world because of fears that they would alter the copyright balance designed to provide creators with appropriate protection for their works and ensure the public enjoyed fair access and use of those works. The Supreme Court of Canada had long established that fair dealing was user's right that operated in balance with creator's rights (listen to this Law Bytes podcast episode for the behind-the-scenes story). The concern with anti-circumvention rules - which played out over several bills in Canada - was that rights holders could effectively limit the exercise of user rights by using technology to lock down copyright works. The classic example was that a user might be entitled to copy a portion of a chapter in a book, but if the book became an e-book with a digital lock, the publisher could use technology to stop copying that was otherwise permitted under the law. If the user sought to circumvent or by-pass the technology to assert their rights, that act of circumvention would itself become an infringement even if the underlying copying itself was permitted. The Federal Court decision restores the balance by concluding that the copyright balance requires that fair dealing co-exist with these digital lock rules, an argument that was raised by CIPPIC, the University of Ottawa public interest technology law clinic, which intervened in the case on this specific issue. The case arises from years of litigation between Blacklock's Reporter, a paywalled news service based in Ottawa, and the Canadian government. Blacklock's had launched a series of lawsuits against various government departments, arguing that some of its articles were distributed within departments beyond the limits of its licences. The Federal Court ruled against Blacklock's in 2016, easily concluding that fair dealing applied to two articles that were sent to department officials by a non-government paying subscriber that were then shared among several media personnel in the department. Blacklock's continued to press ahead with other cases with the latest decision involving 15 articles that were distributed to media personnel at Parks Canada. The department had an individual subscription to the service, but Blacklock's argued that allowing anyone other than original subscriber to access articles constituted copyright infringement. The court found that the Blacklock's legal language associated with its licensing was confusing and that fair dealing applied here as well. While the affirmation of fair dealing yet again is important, more notable is the analysis on digital locks and the role of sharing passwords. Blacklock's position on this issue was straightforward: it argued that its content was protected by a password, that passwords constituted a form of technological protection measure, and that fair dealing does not apply in the context of circumvention. In other words, it argued that the act of circumvention (in this case of a password) was itself infringing and it could not be saved by fair dealing. The Federal Court disagreed on all points. It cited with approval CIPPIC's argument that "the TPM provisions do not apply to restrain fair dealing; using a validly obtained password to access content is not circumvention." Further, court noted "how the password was obtained is significant as this may prevent a user from invoking the fair dealing provisions of the Act." In other words, not all password sharing will qualify as fair dealing. This decision is not a licence to simply share passwords with no consequences, but rather affirmation that passwords are not a technological protection measure and that using validly obtained password does not limit fair dealing rights. The key paragraphs from the decision emphasized the copyright balance and the need to maintain it, even with digital locks: Not only would the upending of the balance require some clear signal from Parliament, which we cannot find in the text, context, structure or even history, but the text of the prohibition against circumvention points in the opposite direction. Section 41.1 establishes a prohibition against circumvention. Subsection (2) provides specifically that the owner of the copyright in a work is entitled to all remedies conferred by law for the infringement of copyright. However, the law is careful to stress that the entitlement to remedies is "subject to this Act and any regulations made under section 41.21". The ability to claim a remedy for circumvention is limited by the words of the Statute because, as I read it, the scheme of the Act continues to prevail. For our purposes, it suffices to note, as we are invited to do so by CIPPIC, that paragraph 49 of CCH establishes the principle that "as an integral part of the scheme of copyright law, the s 29 fair dealing exception is always available". The Supreme Court goes on to use as an example a library that can always use s 29; if unable to satisfy the requirements, it could turn on the library exemption of s 30.2. Specific exemptions for TPM do not, on that reasoning, displace the fundamental pillar of copyright law that is fair dealing. If there is fair dealing, there is no infringement. Actually, the structure of the Act itself places the TPM provision in the part of the Act interested in the remedies for infringement (s 41.1(2)). Given its analysis, the court states: If the goal of the TPM provisions was to allow copyright owners the ability to unilaterally not only to alter the balance, but to change it completely in the face of the state of copyright law, the expectation can only be that Parliament would have said so. It did not. In view of the conclusion that I have reached on the issue of whether fair dealing and TPM were meant to co-exist in some harmony so long as the dealing is fair, which includes obviously how access to the work has been accomplished and the use of the content that followed, the balance between owners of copyrights and potential users of the works remains preserved. The ability of copyright owners to protect against the distribution of their works, which is made so much more broad scale in the digital world, is now a reality. But that cannot be if the cost is to negative fair dealing. Further, on the issue of whether a password even constitutes a technological protection measure, the court states that "licit acquisition and use of a password, if it is otherwise a technological protection measure, does not constitute the circumvention of the technological protection measures of the Copyright Act." What does all of this mean for copyright in Canada? There are at least two main takeaways from this decision. First, rights holders cannot merely rely on password protecting their works in order to qualify for the anti-circumvention rules in the Copyright Act. That does not mean their works are not protected by copyright. They clearly still are. However, it does mean that if they seek the rely on anti-circumvention legislation, the technological protection measure must be a technology, device or component that must be effective in controlling access to the work or restricting the doing of some act. That isn't a password. Second, fair dealing still applies even in cases involving the anti-circumvention provisions. For years, many have argued for a specific exception to clarify that circumvention was permitted for fair dealing purposes, essentially making the case that users should not lose their fair dealing rights the moment a rights holder places a digital lock on their work. The Federal Court has concluded that the fair dealing rights have remained there all along and that the Copyright Act's anti-circumvention rules must be interpreted in a manner consistent with those rights. The case could still be appealed, but for now the court has restored a critical aspect of the copyright balance after more than a decade of uncertainty and concern. Share this: * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) * More * * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) * Click to print (Opens in new window) * * Related posts: [4273272605_4e434]Countering Copyright Misinformation: Canadian Libraries Speak Out Against Ongoing Campaign to Undermine User Rights [10056355054_ebac]The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 180: Victoria Owen Sets the Record Straight on the State of Canadian Copyright Law and Content Licensing By Libraries and Educational Institutions [Law_journals_in_]The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 194: CCH Turns 20 - Scott Jolliffe Goes Behind the Scenes of the Landmark Copyright Case That Ushered in Users' Rights Tags: anti-circumvention / blacklock's / copyright / digital locks / fair dealing / tpms Share this post Tweet 7 Comments 1. [eb9f75d] Jeff Wusch says: June 1, 2024 at 11:23 am No capital T on trump. Please dont give the wanna be king more visibility Reply + [52e9a6c] Julia says: June 1, 2024 at 6:42 pm Make $170 per hour. its very hard to find jobs nowadays. In this xv10 situation, you have access to a wealth of resources to help you with your working abilities. Be motivated to promote Thousands of works such as copy paste things through job boards and career tr-03 websites on internet Just Take A Look At This>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https:// chargedhour11.blogspot.com/ Reply o [d7dab9c] John says: June 4, 2024 at 9:46 am SORRY FRIENDS Am Julia's big brother John she always did the same mistake she post wrong link this is true that we need worker so friends if you interested in above discussiion then follow this shorter for further details................ https://shorturl.at/ycCWD Reply 2. [6d7d768] Stefan Monnier says: June 1, 2024 at 11:55 am I wonder how far this applies, tho. The specific case here involves a very simple technological measure. Would it also imply that making a backup copy of a DVD on a personal HDD using libdvdcss's circumvention is legal? How about reverse engineering a digital lock for the specific purpose of an act itself protected by the fair dealing (like making a backup copy)? On another note: you talk about digital locks here as if they applied only to things made by "creators", i.e. artists, but that same use of the WIPO anti-circumvention rules is widespread nowadays in many contexts unrelated to art, where they are used to make it impossible for competitors to offer alternative services (e.g. for repair). Here's to hoping to see the day where digital locks that encroach on fail dealings are themselves deemed illegal. Reply 3. Pingback: Law and Media Round Up - 3 June 2024 - Inforrm's Blog 4. Pingback: Huge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada - RightsTech Project 5. [7ac3095] Liam says: June 5, 2024 at 1:22 am This is an excellent ruling. But could this be considered a precedent setting case and could it apply to TPMs that are more complex than a mere password on a website? Such as mod-chips for a game console for the purpose of lawfully exercising rights of fair-use or repairing a proprietary device with lockouts against third-party repairs? Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment [ ] Your Name [ ]* Your Email [ ]* Your Website [ ] [ ]Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. CAPTCHA Refresh [ ] CAPTCHA Code * [ ] Notify me of follow-up comments by email. [Submit] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] Law Bytes Law Bytes Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings byMichael Geist Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings Search Episodes[ ]Clear Search Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings June 3, 2024 Michael Geist Episode 203: Andrew Clement on Calls to Separate Privacy Reform and Artificial Intelligence Regulation in Bill C-27 May 13, 2024 Michael Geist Episode 202: David Soberman on the Reality Behind Claims Canadian Wireless Prices Have Been Cut in Half May 6, 2024 Michael Geist Episode 201: Robert Diab on the Billion Dollar Lawsuits Launched By Ontario School Boards Against Social Media Giants April 29, 2024 Michael Geist Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU's Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law April 22, 2024 Michael Geist Load More Search Results placeholder Previous Episode Show Episodes List Next Episode Show Podcast Information Law Bytes - Subscribe * apple * spotify * goodreads * stitcher * tunein * rss Recent Posts * Spotify by Jon Aslund https://flic.kr/p/8aTxPM CC BY 2.0CRTC Bill C-11 Ruling "Makes Web Giants Pay" But it is Canadian Consumers That Will Get the Bill * Game of Thrones - House Targaryen and House Lannister banners by Heather Paul CC BY-ND 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/a81kM3The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 204: What Could Have Been for the Bill S-210 Hearings * Username and password 20170626, Santeri Viinamaki, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia CommonsHuge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada: Federal Court Rules Digital Lock Rules Do Not Trump Fair Dealing * Remember Who You Are by Thomas Hawk https://flic.kr/p/DanhUs CC BY-NC 2.0This is Who We Are Now * Curb Your Enthusiasm NYC by jonasosthassel https://flic.kr/p/ 8LGHqx CC BY 2.0Curb Your Enthusiasm: Why Bill S-210 Could Mandate CRTC-Backed Age Verification For Streaming Services Like Netflix, Crave and CBC Gem Michael Geist on Substack Get Postings via Email Get new posts by email: [ ] Subscribe Open Books Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (University of Ottawa Press, 2015) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013) From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law, 2010) In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005) . Broadcasting and Telecom Legislative Review Panel Report (BTLR) [Jump to... ] Archives June 2024 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 << May Michael Geist mgeist@uottawa.ca Creative Commons License This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed. counter statistics