View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
1/45
ACCESS COPYRIGHT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOL TARIFFS (2010-2012 & 2013-2015)
ACCESS COPYRIGHT LEGAL SUBMISSIONS
(FILED PURSUANT TO BOARD NOTICE DATED JUNE 6, 2014)
August 8, 2014 THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT
LICENSING AGENCY
1 Yonge Street, Suite 800
Toronto, ON M5E1E5
Arthur B. RenaudLSUC #26331F
Tel: (416) 868-1620 ext. 294
arenaud@accesscopyright.ca
Erin FinlayLSUC #48054B
Tel: (416) 868-1620 ext. 234
Fax: (416) 868-1621efinlay@accesscopyright.ca
Lawyers for Access Copyright
mailto:arenaud@accesscopyright.camailto:arenaud@accesscopyright.camailto:efinlay@accesscopyright.camailto:efinlay@accesscopyright.camailto:efinlay@accesscopyright.camailto:arenaud@accesscopyright.ca8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
2/45
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
3/45
2
from a number of sources: express written grants of rights (e.g. an affiliation agreement); written
agreements with other collectives (e.g. Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.); and through its appointment
as agent, express or implied, by rightsholders who have not otherwise made an express written grant
(non-affiliated rightsholders).
4.
Access Copyright provided legal justification for including the works of non-affiliated
rightsholders in the royalty calculation in the previous tariff proceeding in a detailed legal brief dated
October 9, 2007.3
In their response to Access Copyrights position, the Objectors asserted that the
copyright-protected works of non-affiliated rightsholders ought to be excluded from Access Copyrights
repertoire.
5. The Board made a legal finding4,well within its jurisdiction, that the works of non-affiliated
rightsholders who actively ratify Access Copyrights collective administration of their reprographic rights
(by cashing royalty distributions made by Access Copyright arising from the copying of their works in K-
12 educational institutions) are included within Access Copyrights repertoire by way of implied agency.
The Boards finding, on the evidence, was that approximately 0.1 percent of these rightsholders did not
ratify the agency relationship. The evidence in the present proceedings is that that percentage has
remained relatively constant since that time.5
b) Application of the evidentiary rule of issue estoppel
6. The Boards finding was not challenged by the Objectors on judicial review6
7. In these present proceedings, the Objectors have recycled their arguments from the inaugural
tariff proceedings. The Objectors assert that the only works in Access Copyrights repertoire are those
that are the result of valid affiliation agreements
. Absent changes to
the relevant provisions of theActor the tendering of evidence that introduces new facts that were
unascertained or unascertainable at the time of the inaugural tariff proceedings, the Boards previous
substantive findings of fact and law are binding on the parties in these proceedings.
7
. All works of non-affiliated rightsholders are to be
excluded.
8. This issue of law was conclusively resolved in the inaugural tariff proceedings. To the extent the
Objectors purport to support their recycled assertion with new analyses, this evidence is not grounded
in any new facts or any facts that were unascertained or unascertainable at the time of the inaugural
tariff proceedings. Accordingly, the Objectors are precluded from proffering evidence in these
proceedings to challenge the Boards substantive legal finding and from otherwise calling into question,
once again, the breadth of Access Copyrights repertoire8
.
9. The application of the evidentiary rule of issue estoppel ensures consistency in the Boards
decisions, respect for their finality, and allows the Board to augment its previous decisions. If the
Objectors are permitted to relitigate issues previously decided with finality, confidence in the fairness
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
4/45
3
and integrity of the Boards previous decisions are undermined by the possibility of inconsistent findings
in unnecessarily duplicative proceedings.
c) Answers to Boards Post-Hearing Questions 2.1-2.4
10.
Should the Board decline to apply the evidentiary rule of issue estoppel, Access Copyright again
relies on the evidence of its Executive Director, Ms. Levy 9
, that explains the policy and practicalities that
support the administration of the rights of copyright holders on an exclusions basis which: a) ensures
that rightsholders whose works are copied receive fair compensation for the copying and use of their
works; and b) provides certainty to users as to which works may be copied with immunity from suit for
copyright infringement under section 70. 17 of theAct.
11. The facts and law underlying the Boards substantive findings on the breadth of Access
Copyrights repertoire remained unchanged: the parties agreed to set the royalty based on the Volume
Study data10
; Access Copyright has distributed based on that data for the period up to 201211
; AccessCopyright continues to pay royalties to non-affiliated rightsholders whose works were captured during
the study12; the decision to do so reflects Access Copyrights past (and current) practices; and almost all
of the non-affiliated rightsholders have cashed the cheques they received13
. The only fact that has
changed since the Decision that impacts the agency issue is that the Objectors have unilaterally decided
to stop paying royalties to Access Copyright and have deprived Access Copyright of data as to which
particular works have been copied in K-12 institutions after January 1, 2013.
12.
The Board set the inaugural K-12 tariff based on evidence of the general behaviour of collectives
and users by drawing conclusions about representative copying behaviour throughout the entire period
covered by the tariff14. It remains appropriate that the Board include works of non-affiliatedrightsholders in the royalty calculation based upon the proven facts and reasonable inferences
therefrom that: (a) Access Copyright has continued, and will continue, to distribute royalties once they
are paid,to non-affiliated rightsholders when their works are copied; and (b) that the vast majority of
those rightsholders will cash the cheques.15
13.
Access Copyright only distributed $2.576 per FTE for the 2010-2012 tariff period because the
tariff rate has not yet been finally certified by the Board. Those distributions were made to all
rightsholders for whom Access Copyright has information that their works have been copied , including
non-affiliated rightsholders. Once the tariff is certified, Access Copyright will, in accordance with its past
practices, distribute the remaining royalties to those rightsholders.
14. It would be patently unjust if the Board allowed the Objectors to copy the works of non-
affiliated rightsholders without consequence and without payment because the Objectors decided to
stop paying royalties under the Access Copyright tariff and ceased to disclose which works have been
copied. The Objectors should not, by their unilateral actions, be permitted to copy from copyright-
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
5/45
4
protected works of non-affiliated rightsholders simply because they refuse to pay the tariff or otherwise
abide by its terms.
15. Exhibit AC-79 is the letter that accompanies Access Copyrights distribution cheques to all
rightsholders, including non-affiliated rightsholders. It explains the reasons for the distribution, the
sector that copied the rightsholders works and describes the uses made of the works (photocopying,
scanning, posting and electronic distribution). The letter is accompanied by a distribution report which
lists the individual works copied, the sector that copied the work, the number of copies made and the
amount paid for such copying. In response to the Boards request, a sample distribution report has been
filed as CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT AC-103. When a rightsholder accepts payment for the uses made (as
outlined in Exhibits AC-79 and AC-103), it does so with the full knowledge of what is being authorized
and the implied agency relationship is ratified.
16. For non-affiliated rightsholders, Access Copyright communicates directly with and pays the
copyright owner. In most cases, the copyright owner is the publisher16
, but sometimes the copyright is
owned by an author or authors estate. (For example, if a work is out-of-print, copyright typically reverts
to the author.) In those cases, Access Copyright pays the author. In all cases, Access Copyright
endeavors, to the best of its ability, to communicate directly with the copyright owner or its agent.
17. Copies made of works owned by non-affiliated rightsholders of an RRO are authorized by the
proposed tariffs. Australia has a statutory licence for educational and government copying of books,
magazines and newspapers that is managed by Copyright Agency, so there are no non-affiliated
rightsholders in Australia relevant to this tariff. The RROs of the United Kingdom and the United States
search for and distribute royalty distributions to non-affiliated rightsholders when the RROs are notified
that those rightholders' works have been copied. When foreign non-affiliated rightsholders accept
payment through their RRO, they ratify the agency relationship. To find otherwise would violate the
principle of National Treatment by treating foreign rightsholders differently than Canadian rightsholders
when their works are copied in Canada.
18. Access Copyright does not receive confirmation that an affiliation agreement was entered into
with the foreign RRO. It relies on the terms of its bilateral agreements, and the exchange of exclusions
and inclusions lists (e.g. for born digital works), under which the RRO represents the rights that it has.
d)
Sheet music
19. The Board has asked (Post-Hearing Question 2.5)Access Copyright to explain what value
accrues to the Objectors to have a tariff for the reproduction of sheet music instead of permitting them
to operate on a transactional basis.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
6/45
5
20. First, the testimony of Mr. Chodorowitz in the previous tariff proceeding17
remains apt in
respect to sheet music in the absence of the blanket licence it would be extremely difficult for schools
to clear the rights before making copies on a transactional title-by-title, work-by-work basis.
21. Second, there is no evidence in these proceedings that K-12 institutions have ever sought
copyright clearances or transactional licences from print music publishers to copy sheet music, despite
having copied millions of pages18 from this genre per annum. Indeed, the evidence of record is that no
transactional licences or copyright clearances have ever been sought by K-12 institutions to permit
copying of works in Access Copyrights repertoire at any time19. The Board is entitled to draw a
reasonable inference20
that the Objectors will not alter their behaviour and now begin to seek
transactional licences.
22. Unless the Objectors were to completely cease the copying of sheet music there was no such
suggestion, much less such an undertaking from the Objectors to that effect the Board must weigh the
practical unworkability and unenforceability of a transactional licensing scheme against the reality that
the continued substantial copying of such works at K-12 institutions will deprive owners of the
reproduction rights in sheet music all compensation whatsoever if the proposed tariffs exclude sheet
music from the compensable genres of works.
23. Third, given CMRRAs expanding authority21to administer its affiliates sheet music reproduction
rights, the user uncertainty expressed by Ms. Rioux will dissipate over time. As CMRRAs sheet music
repertoire expands, the value to the Objectors (including the immunity from suit afforded by section
70.17 of theAct) will correspondingly increase. This value is one of the benefits that Mr. Chodorowitz
acknowledged in the previous tariff proceedings22
that accrued to the Objectors, albeit in relation to the
genres of works then under consideration.
24. With respect to the Boards request (Post-Hearing Question 2.6) for clarification as to the
respective mandates of Access Copyright and CMRRA for musical scores in books, the clarification was
provided to Objectors counsel and previously filed with the Board23. By way of summary, the CMRRA
print music right affiliation schedule24
defines published musical works to include sheet music and
musical scores in book form. To the extent a CMRRA affiliate publishes print musical works in the form
of books, there is no expansion of Access Copyrights repertoire since the reproduction of those works
already falls within Access Copyrights repertoire.
25.
Access Copyrights repertoire is only expanded through the operation of the October 2010
mandate agreements25
when a music publisher who has subscribed to Schedule G of the CMRRA
Affiliation Agreement publishes print musical works in the form of sheet music. Any redundancy
introduced by the broad definition of published musical works used in Schedule G by CMRRA with its
affiliates to include musical scores in books does not add or subtract works from Access Copyrights
already-established collective administration mandate.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
7/45
6
26. The joint operation of Schedule G and the mandate agreements afford Access Copyright the
right to collectively administer the reproduction right in both sub-genres of published print musical
works, from October 2010 onward, of those music publishers who have subscribed to Schedule G to
CMRRAs Affiliation Agreement.
LEGAL /EVIDENTIARY ISSUES RELATING TO COPYING BEHAVIOUR IN K-12 SCHOOLS
a)
Boards previous findings re: volume of copied published works were based on best available
evidence, are final and ought not be disturbed
27. Access Copyright and the Objectors jointly designed a comprehensive study which collected
data relating to the copying behaviour of teachers in a sample of K-12 institutions over a two week
period from February 2005 to March 2006 (the Volume Study).
28. The data captured by the Volume Study was subjected to a rigorous and comprehensive analysis
in the previous tariff proceedings by the parties respective experts. The parties tendered expert
evidence concerning those analyses. The experts were made available for cross-examination. At the end
of this process, the parties essentially agreed on the total number of photocopied pages. The parties
were afforded all opportunities to advance all relevant analyses and expert evidence and their
positions/arguments on the Volume Study.
29. The Board considered the parties evidence and arguments and made certain substantive
findings of fact. Among those findings was that approximately 10.3 billion pages were photocopied in K-
12 institutions per annum and that the volume was comprised of approximately 3.1 billion pages from
published works of various genres.
26
30. The Objectors accept that the data in the Volume Study should again be used to calculate the
volume of compensable copying in K-12 institutions for the purposes of the present proceedings27
. In
other words, the Volume Study data serves as a satisfactory proxy for the volume of copying during the
2010-2015 tariff periods.
31. Despite that acceptance, the Objectors purport to challenge the substantive findings of fact
made by the Board in the previous tariff proceedings arising from the Volume Study. As is the case with
the Objectors challenge to the breadth of Access Copyrights repertoire, the Objectors challenge is not
grounded in any new facts that were unascertained or unascertainable at the time of the previous tariffproceedings. The evidentiary rule of issue estoppel precludes the Objectors from challenging/re-opening
the Boards findings concerning total copying volume of published works in K-12 institutions.
32. The Objectors are not precluded from having the Board reconsider the final compensable
volumes for the purposes of the 2013-2015 tariff given the legislative and jurisprudential developments
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
8/45
7
relating to fair dealing and other statutory exceptions; and given the fact that the issue of fair dealing is
always a fact-based inquiry to be determined upon reliable evidence tendered in each case.
b) A party may not rely on its own responses to interrogatories unless witnesses/evidence are
unavailable
33. The Objectors tendered no evidence from current K-12 teachers concerning their copying
behaviour during the periods covered by the proposed tariffs. Instead, the Objectors and their expert
witnesses purport to rely on the answers given by the Objectors in response to written interrogatories 28
asked by Access Copyright as evidence of current copying behaviour by teachers in K-12 schools.
34. Contrary to the position advanced by the Objectors in their Opening Statement29, it was not
impossible for the Objectors to tender evidence concerning teacher copying behaviour circa 2013/2014.
Mr. Chodorowicz admitted30that he had previously conducted polls of teachers in connection with the
previous tariff proceedings. Despite having been retained for almost a year31
, no poll of teacher copyingbehaviour was undertaken for the purposes of the present proceedings. Moreover, despite the fact that
he was at complete liberty to speak to teachers (unlike Mr. Dobner to whom teachers would not
speak32), Mr. Chodorowicz never spoke to teachers before filling his report33
.
35. Interrogatories are in the nature of examinations for discovery34. In adversarial proceedings, a
party is not permitted to read-in portions of its own discovery as evidence, unless there are no other
means to introduce the evidence, because the reliability of these out-of-court self-serving statements
cannot be tested through cross-examination; nor can the credibility of the declarants or the reliability of
the statements be assessed by the tribunal35
.
36. The unreliability of these self-serving statements is illustrated in at least two concrete examples
in these proceedings: 1) Mr. Chodorowiczs reliance on inaccurate FTE numbers provided by the
Objectors in the interrogatory process36which were contradicted by the reliable data provided in
connection with the Objectors reporting obligations under section 8(4) of the certified tariff; and 2) Mr.
Chodorowiczs initial conclusion (recanted at the hearing37) that copying from textbooks is rare,38a
conclusion arrived at from his reliance on the Objectors unreliable interrogatory responses which was
again contradicted by the reliable data gathered in the bibliographic studies conducted under section 10
of the certified tariff (the Bibliographic Studies).39
37.
The rule precluding a party from relying on its own self-serving interrogatory responses, unless
supported by a live witness whose evidence may be challenged (by the opposite party) and whose
credibility and reliability may be weighed (by the Board), ensures that the Board has probative evidence
upon which to make accurate findings of fact, findings that will be afforded significant deference in any
judicial review of those findings
40
.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
9/45
8
c)
Adverse inferences and weighing conflicting evidence
38. The Objectors did not tender evidence within their control, in particular, the evidence of
teachers concerning their current copying behaviour. The Board ought to draw an unfavourable
inference from that failure, that is, that their evidence would not have assisted the Objectors41
.
39. To the extent there is a conflict in the evidence tendered by the parties concerning the current
copying behaviour of K-12 teachers, the Board ought to afford determinative weight to evidence that
was put forward through a witness (Access Copyright witnesses and Mr. Gauthier) who could be
challenged through cross-examination and whose credibility could be subjected to the Boards scrutiny.
Here, to the extent there is a conflict in the evidence concerning teacher copying behaviour between
the self-serving interrogatory answers (and the Objectors expert evidence that is based upon such
answers) and the evidence of the Bibliographic Studies about which the Board heard direct evidence
from Access Copyrights witnesses, that conflict must be determined in favour of Access Copyright.
40.
Moreover, in weighing any conflicts in the evidence, the Board is fully entitled to take into
consideration any evidence that suggests that any expert witness impermissibly departed from his role
as a non-partisan, objective witness and instead became an advocate for the party who retained him.
41. For decades, common law courts have insisted that experts be independent from the parties
who retain them; provide objective, unbiased opinion evidence only in relation to matters within their
expertise; and avoid assuming the role of advocates for the parties who retain them.42
42. The Objectors expert witness, Mr. Chodorowicz, approached his mandate as an expert witness
in a non-objective, partisan manner to advocate the interests of the Objectors. As was revealed during
his cross-examination, Mr. Chodorowicz selectively extracted only those portions of an authoritative
document
43that supported the Objectors position but inappropriately withheld from his report and his
examination in chief all mention of other relevant excerpts that were directly contrary to the Objectors
position and that were clearly relevant to his mandate. Moreover, a number of answers given to
questions asked of him on cross-examination were evasive and inconsistent44
.
43. This conduct ought to be taken into account when the Board weighs his evidence. In particular,
where his evidence conflicts with that of Mr. Dobner in respect to the impacts of K-12 teacher copying
behaviour on the publishers markets, the evidence of Mr. Dobner - who testified in a straightforward
and forthcoming manner in accordance with his obligations as an expert witness - should be preferred.
INSUBSTANTIAL COPYING
44.
In question 4(c) of the Boards technical questions in its June 6, 2014 Notice, the Board referred
to its 2009 decision in Satellite Radio45as apparent support for setting a threshold for uncompensable
insubstantial copying in the present proceedings. The Boards findings in that decision were specific to
those proceedings and are inapplicable to the present proceedings.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
10/45
9
45. As correctly found by the Board in Satellite Radio46, whether or not there has been reproduction
of a substantial part of a work is a question of fact which must be determined in light of all the
circumstances of each case. In Satellite Radio, the 4-6 second byte soup was unrecognizable in terms
of audio files and was both inaccessible and completely invisible to users. Applying the then leading
jurisprudence47, the Board correctly determined the issue of substantiality by assessing the quality
that was taken rather than quantity. An assessment restricted to a quantitative measurement of the
percentage of the work copied would have been contrary to that jurisprudence.
46. The principles in U & R Tax Services Ltd. were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Cinar Corporation v. Robinson48. The Court confirmed that theActprotects creators against both literal
and non-literal copying so long as the copied material forms a substantial part of the work from which it
is copied. Whether a part copied is substantial must be decided using a qualitative and holistic approach
rather than merely considering the quantity copied. If the copying of any part, even a small quantitative
part, represents a substantial portion of the authors skill and judgment expressed in the work, the
copyright in the work is infringed.
47.
On the facts and circumstances of Satellite Radio, the Board found that the 4-6 seconds were
not a substantial part of the work. The 4-6 seconds were part of a technological process, were not
chosen by the user and could not be linked together to make a longer segment of a musical work. As the
Board found, [a]t no time does a subscriber possess a series of 4 to 6 second clips which when taken
together would constitute a substantial part of the work.49
48. The facts of Satellite Radiostand in stark contrast to the facts in the present proceedings. Here,
unlike the Satellite Radio decision, the copied portions of published educational works are completely
recognizable and accessible by users and chosen by them. The evidence in these proceedings50
establishes that K-12 teachers return to the same published educational resource to copy additional
portions. As such, while an individual copying event may be less than 2.5% of a work, the phenomenon
of compound copying means that teachers copy more than the supposed threshold from a given work
for a given class in a given year.
49. In addition, the evidence in these proceedings51
establishes that, in many published educational
works, a substantial amount of original skill and judgment can be expressed in one or two pages of a
work. An arbitrary 2.5% threshold, measured solely on a quantitative basis, would permit the substantial
copying of such a work.
50. In their submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada in Alberta (Education), the Objectors
identified a quote, a sentence , that is, a portion so de minimus, so unimportant that it is not within
the right of a copyright owner to control52
as the proportion of a work that, if copied, would be
insubstantial. The Objectors conceded in oral argument that the copying at issue in that case went
beyond de minimus copying.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
11/45
10
51. In these proceedings, the Objectors take the contrary position, claiming that all copying below a
certain quantitative threshold significantly more than a simple quote or sentence falls within the
ambit of insubstantial copying. Moreover, the Objectors deduction for insubstantial copying ignores
completely the qualitative aspects of the portions copied53
. That analysis ought to be given no weight by
the Board as it does not accord with the jurisprudence and with the Objectors admission in Alberta
(Education).
52. The evidence in these proceedings54confirms that K-12 teachers value the ability to copy from
publishers works and that the portions copied are qualitatively instrumental to meet the educational
needs of students.55
As such, the portions copied are not unimportant or de minimusand thus
cannot constitute insubstantial copying. If, from a K-12 teachers perspective, the portions copied
have a high educational value that will benefit her students, the portions must be presumed to
represent a key portion of the authors skill and judgment whose objective in creating the work was also
to express the educational concepts in a way that benefits students.
53.
For all the above reasons, an arbitrary quantitative threshold alone cannot be used to determine
substantiality. In any event, the evidentiary record confirms that the portions copied by K-12 teachers
are not qualitatively unimportant or de minimus. The Board should make no deduction from the
compensable volume on account of insubstantial copying.
FAIR DEALING
a)
Overview of Access Copyrights position
54. Access Copyright supports the Statement of Principles on Fair Dealing in Education released by
the Association of Canadian Publishers (ACP) in December 201356
.Access Copyrights position on fairdealing in elementary and secondary schools is also reflected in the Canadian Educational Resources
Councils (CERCs) Fair Dealing Guidelines for K-12 Setting.57
55. The ACP principles and CERC guidelines advocate for a principled and balanced approach to fair
dealing that advance the policy objectives of copyright law. This principled and fair approach is absent
from consideration in the Fair Dealing Guidelines published by Council of Ministers of Education,
Canada (CMEC) in the third edition of Copyright Matters!(the Guidelines).
b)
Legislative and jurisprudential developments
56. Since November, 2012, Section 29 of theActhas expressly identified education as one of the
eight enumerated purposes that may qualify as fair dealing, provided the person advocating fairness is
able to satisfy its evidential and legal burdens and demonstrate that the dealing is, on the facts of that
case, fair. 58
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
12/45
11
57. In answer to the Boards Post-Hearing Question 1.1, the amendments to the legislation
expanded the first step of the fair dealing test to allow three new enumerated purposes, including
education. Neither the legislation, nor the Supreme Court of Canadas decisions inAlberta (Education)
or SOCAN v. Bellaltered the second fairness step of the fair dealing test.59 The determination of fair
dealing remains a case-by-case analysis60and a matter of impression61
dependent on the facts of the
case.
58.
InAlberta (Education), Access Copyright and the Objectors agreed that the copying at issue by
teachers in K-12 schools met a broad and liberal definition of research or private study under the first
step of the CCHfair dealing test.62
Similarly, for the purposes of the present tariff proceedings, Access
Copyright concedes that the purpose of the copying in K-12 schools meets an allowable purpose under
the first step of the CCHtest (other than copying made solely for the purpose of entertainment). The
Board must now engage in a second step fairness analysis and assess the evidence and arguments
advanced in these proceedings in respect to the six fair dealing factors identified in CCH.
59.
Alberta (Education) turned on the issues presented to the Court, as framed by the Objectors,
and the Courts assessment of the evidence of record a record significantly different from the
evidentiary record before the Board in the present proceedings:
a) The disputed copying behaviour at issue inAlberta (Education)was limited to an assessment
of the impact of the copying of 16.9 million pages of copyright-protected works in the
context of the Objectors admission that their copying of approximately 229 million pages
should trigger the payment of millions of dollars to Access Copyright under the first certified
tariff. Relying on the Objectors submissions, the Court understood that publishers and
creators would continue to receive millions of dollars from K-12 institutions through a
collective licence for the copying of their works63
. Here, the Objectors submit that practically
all copying in K-12 schools is exempt from royalty payments under the Acts exceptions.
b) InAlberta (Education), the copying behaviour at issue, and ultimately found to be fair,
involved a teachers situational, unplanned need to copy a few pages or little bits (and
certainly not chapters) from a book in order to assist a student struggling to understand
the educational content in the assigned textbook. Here, the Objectors submit that
practically all copying in K-12 schools non-situational, planned and organized copying of up
to 10% of a work or an entire chapter, including the compilation of various excerpts into
textbook-like collections64
, coordinated for maximum value and designed specifically to
avoid payment is fair.
c) InAlberta (Education), the copying behaviour under consideration by the Court was limited
to the copying of little bits solely to complement or supplement the content in the core
textbook in the situational context of a struggling student(s) and thus would not substitute
or replace the need to purchase the published work. Here the evidence, including a clear
admission from the Objectors expert economist, Mr. Chodorowicz65,is that certain copying
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
13/45
12
behaviours encouraged by the Guidelines will lead to substitution for, and elimination of,
certain published works.
d) InAlberta (Education), the copying behaviour at issue was triggered by the unexpected
educational needs of the student. Here, all copying behaviour claimed by the Objectors to
be encompassed by the fair dealing exception are contextually unlimited and subject only to
the unmonitored one chapter or 10% arithmetic ceiling.
e)
Unlike the evidence here before the Board, in Alberta (Education)there was scant evidence
(labeled an evidentiary vacuum by the Supreme Court66
) in the record that the markets for
the publishers works had been negatively impacted by the copying behaviour there at issue.
f) InAlberta (Education), the Supreme Court found that the Board had erred in its assessment
of market impacts by including, in that assessment, more than a quarter billion copied
textbook pages per year for which the schools already paid a tariff.67
Here, the Objectors do
not pay the tariff and claim that almost all copied pages are fair dealing. UnlikeAlberta
(Education), the market impact assessment in the present proceedings must include the
uncompensated copying of over 300 million pages per year that the Objectors claim is fair.
60. Hence, none of the hallmarks of fairness before the Court inAlberta (Education) unplanned,
spontaneous situational copying that did not substitute for the purchase of published works and did not
otherwise negatively impact the market are part of the evidentiary record currently before the Board.
The present proceedings are a markedly different case thanAlberta (Education).
61. The decision in SOCAN v. Bellwas also based upon the evidentiary record and arguments
advanced by the parties. The two-fold ratio of that case is that the word research as used in section 29
of theActis not to be restricted to creative endeavors, but includes activities that do not require the
establishment of new facts or conclusions; and that it is the ultimate user or consumers perspective to
whom the musical previews were communicated that is to be considered when determining whether
their dealing with the previews was research-based and otherwise fair. 68
62. Access Copyright submits that, at most,Alberta (Education)corrected the Boards legal error in
finding that copies made by a teacher on her own initiative without a triggering request from a student
could not be fair research or private study (which resulted in a further reduction of 16.9 million
pages from compensable volume in the Boards re-determination decision). SOCAN v. Bellinstructs the
Board to consider the students (as the end-user) purpose when assessing fair dealing.
63. In addition, the evidence in SOCAN v. Bellestablished that the end users research-based
streaming of short previews did not compete with or adversely affect the purchase of downloads of the
works previewed. Indeed, the effect of the ISPs dissemination of low-quality and impermanent
previews to end users increased the ultimate sale and permanent downloading of the entire works by
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
14/45
13
end users. In other words, there was no negative impact on the market for the musical works
previewed: in fact, the converse was true.
64. The evidence of record in the present proceedings establishes, among other things, a significant
negative impact on the market for educational works. Beyond this fundamental distinction, the copies in
the present proceedings are not disseminated to end users to help them decide whether or not to
purchase the entire work from which the copies have been made. Rather, the copies are disseminated
as replacements or substitutions for the purpose of the original work. Moreover, the copies made by
educational institutions for use by students are not impermanent or of a lesser quality than the original
work from which the copies were made. To the contrary, they were made so as to provide a learning
resource of equal readability to the original and thus substitute for the need to purchase the original
work.
c) The Objectors policies and practices are not presumptively fair
65.
In answer to the Boards Post-Hearing Question 1.2, the Guidelines relied upon by the Objectors
are only relevant to a fair dealing assessment if their own practices and policies are [for a fair dealing
purpose and] fair. It is only if the Board finds that the Objectors general practices are fair that the
Guidelines can serve to obviate the Objectors burden to prove that all individual dealings with the
works in Access Copyrights repertoire are fair.69
66. While the Guidelines (clauses 5 and 6) speak of K-12 institutions designating supervisors or
other persons to evaluate copying behaviour that exceeds the prescribed copying limits; and purport to
place ambiguous limits on copying of multiple short excerpts grounded in the subjective intentions of
the teachers [an] intention [to copy]substantially the entire work is prohibited the Guidelines aresilent as to the appointment of any supervisor to monitor and enforce the limits.
67. Contrary to the Objectors stated position that there is no obligation on educators to monitor,
enforce and police the [Guidelines]70
, the absence of any obligation to monitor and enforce the limits is
a pertinent omission.
68. The importance of monitoring and enforcement of a fair dealing policy is underscored by the
CCH decision. That decision turned on the evidence before that Court, including the nature of the works
(edited and head-noted judicial decisions and other works essential to legal research) and the
implementation by the Great Library of an Access to the Law Policy. That policy provided, on its face, a
strict procedure that controlled the nature and extent of the copying behaviour. The policy was
supported by the uncontradicted testimony at trial that the Great Library monitored and strictly
enforced the policy71. Such enforcement was only possible because of the single locusof the copying
activities permitted such monitoring to occur.72 This evidence contributed to the Courts conclusion that
the Great Library could rely on the general practice set out in the policy without establishing that all
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
15/45
14
individual dealings were, in fact, for an allowable purpose and fair.
69. Here, there is overwhelming evidence in the evidentiary record73 that monitoring and
enforcement of the Guidelines is completely absent and that the copying limits prescribed by the
Guidelines are illusory.74
70. In fact, it is highly unlikely that anyversion of the Guidelines past, present or future could be
deemed to be fair and thereby obviate the Objectors burden to prove that each of their individual
dealings are for a fair dealing purpose and are fair. The Objectors past behaviour demonstrates that the
Guidelines will not be followed, no matter their purported limits. The second version of Copyright
Matters!was in place in K-12 institutions between 2005-2012
75
. That version prohibited the copying of
sheet music and consumables, yet the Volume Study established that K-12 teachers copied 19 million
pages of sheet music and 170 million pages of consumables per year. Based on the evidence of their
past behaviour, the only reasonable inference that may be drawn is that none of the Objectors
practices, systems or policies can ever be presumptively fair.
71. Therefore, the Objectors cannot rely on their general practices to establish that the Guidelines
are fair76. In the absence of language in the Guidelines or other policies which ensure that the
prescribed copying limits are followed, controlled, monitored and enforced; and evidence that copying
limits are, in fact
, followed, controlled, monitored and enforced, the Board is in no position to make any
determination that the Guidelines are presumptively fair.
d)
The Guidelines ignore the jurisprudence and thus cannot be fair
72.
After theAlberta (Education) decision, the Objectors published the Guidelines.In contrast to fairuse guidelines published in other jurisdictions, the Guidelines were arrived at without anynegotiation or
meaningful consultation with any relevant stakeholders (e.g. educational resource publishers).77
73. Under the Objectors definition of short excerpt, the copying of, inter alia, up to ten per cent
of a work, an article, a poem, an entire musical score and an entire chapter of a work is fair. 78Beyond
the ambiguity or fuzziness of that definition79
74. In attempting to delineate what constitutes fair dealing from dealing which is not, the
Guidelines advocate a bright-line arithmetic rule that defines fairness solely by the amount of the
dealing. That arithmetic ceiling finds no support in any Canadian jurisprudence and is plainly
inconsistent with the Objectors own previous solemn representations to Parliament and the Supreme
Court of Canada.
,it ignores the Supreme Court jurisprudence upon which
the Objectors purport to ground its validity.
75. In March 2011, two of the Objectors members (the Nova Scotia Minister of Education and chair
of CMEC; and Deputy Minister) and Objectors counsel, gave evidence to the legislative committee on
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
16/45
15
Bill C-32 that was studying, among other issues, the proposed extension of the allowable fair dealing
purposes to include education.80
The Objectors representatives were appearing before the
committee on behalf of all education ministers other than Quebec.
76. In their testimony, the Minister and Deputy Minister identified short excerpts as a clip from a
television program for a current events class or a diagram illustrating a science or math topic 81; or one
or two pages from [a] book82
.
77. In December, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada inAlberta (Education)was presented with a
very narrow issue83
, that is, whether a teacher copying pages from a copyright-protected work for
distribution to students struggling with the course subject matter, without any prior request from
students, fell within the ambit of the research or private study fair dealing purposes.
78. As noted above, the volume associated with the disputed copying at issue was 16.9 million
pages, approximately 7% of the total compensable copying volume per annum in K-12 institutions. The
Objectors did not dispute their obligation to pay royalties to Access Copyright for the copying
behaviours that accounted for the remaining 93% (nearly quarter billion pages) of the volume of copied
pages.
79. The issue as to what proportion copied from an educational resource qualified as a short
excerpt for the purposes of fair dealing was not before the Court. However, throughout their
submissions, the Objectors variously defined short excerpt as follows:
a) a few pagesfor students having a problem with a lesson you are trying to teach 84
;
b)
the copying in dispute in this case is short excerpts copied to supplement the main
textbook85
;
c) what is a short excerpt?...in Canada, I cant give you a percentage answer or a
mathematical answer86
;
d) we are taking short excerpts from a different resource, and it is a very short excerpt 87
;
e) [the undisputed quarter billion pages which the Objectors agreed was compensable]
would be things like chapters from a book; not short excerpts but long excerpts, if you want
to continue with the analogy that I began with that fair dealing deals with little bits 88
;
f) the [Objectors] position is not that this Court should set a mathematical formula [for
defining short excerpt]89
; and
g) Under the [previous] negotiated licencethe [Objectors] would pay for an article, a poem,
up to 10 percent of a work, a chapter. So, the fair dealing provision under that negotiated
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
17/45
16
licence was not important because the licence paid for way more than what you could copy
under fair dealing (emphasis added). 90
80. Consistent with its decision in CCH (when the Court refused to grant the Law Societys claimed
declaratory relief for a 10% copying threshold91
), the Supreme Court inAlberta (Education) did not
define short excerpt in purely arithmetic terms. The amount of the dealing was but one factor the
Court considered in the overall factual matrix in the context of the Objectors representations about
teacher copying behaviour.
81. Accordingly, and in partial answer to the Boards Post-Hearing Question 1.1, the Supreme Court
of Canada correctly declined to provide a purely mathematical definition of short excerpt inAlberta
(Education). The Courts reluctance to do so was a clear recognition that an assessment of fair dealing
cannot start and end with a quantitative limit on the amount of the dealing factor. Evidence on the
amount of dealing factor is to be considered and weighed along with the evidence relating to all other
fair dealing factors.
82. One need only compare the Objectors representations to other august bodies as to what is, and
what is not, a short excerpt to the definition of short excerpt used in the Guidelines to appreciate
the Objectors radical departure in the nature and extent of the copying that they submit in the present
proceedings falls within the scope of the fair dealing exception. The Objectors stated position in these
proceedings contradicts their own previous formal representations and, not unsurprisingly, finds no
support inAlberta (Education).
83. The manifest inconsistency and unfairness of the definition of short excerpt developed by
CMEC is captured by Mr. Georges unabashed admission in answer to a question from the Board that
the copying of a chapter comprising 45% of the source work would be fair since the teacher is not
required to choose the most restrictive option92
84. The Guidelines otherwise ignore all other fair dealing factors. They do not encourage teachers to
seek out reasonable alternatives to copying. They place no limits on the aggregate volume of copying
that teachers may make. They place no objective limits on compound copying. They do not require
teachers to consider the qualitative aspects of the portions copied. They permit
.
93
teachers to make
textbook-like collections comprised of chapters (or other substantial portions) copied from published
works; and permit the systematic, pre-planned copying from published works that is not restricted in
any way to meet the situational needs of individual students.
85. Combined with a definition of short excerpt that permits the copying of substantial portions
of works even well in excess of the supposed 10% ceiling the Guidelines incentivize K-12 institutions
to make free self-made resources comprised of copied chapters and other substantial portions of
publishers works and dis-incentivize the purchase of resources from which these copies are made. 94
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
18/45
17
86. Copying from publishers works thus facilitates the Objectors adoption of the emerging
pedagogical model whereby teachers now draw on a number of different alternatives to the core
textbook model. From an economic fairness standpoint, payment for such facilitation should be
made.95
87.
Finally, as discussed further below, the evidence of record confirms that the Objectors actual
copying behaviour and the copying permitted under the Guidelines has already had significant negative
impacts on the publishers markets for their works and will very likely continue to have serious negative
impacts on those markets. Apart from the harm to the publishers, the evidence establishes that both
creators and users of such works will also be negatively impacted by the copying behaviour encouraged
by the Guidelines.
e) Assessment of the evidence of record in respect to the six fair dealing factors
A.
Legal and evidentiary burdens
88. As discussed above, whether the dealing is fair is a question of fact and depends on the facts of
each case96
. In any adversarial proceedings such as the present proceedings, the Board must, when
making its findings of fact, be mindful where the legal and evidential burdens lie in respect to the fair
dealing factors.
89. The Supreme Court of Canada in CCH97
confirmed that the party (in these proceedings, the
Objectors) who asserts that its copying behaviour is fair bears the legal burden of establishing that fact.
This means that if, after consideration of all relevant factors, the Board remains in a state of uncertainty
as to whether the copying was fair, or finds that the parties respective positions are evenly balanced, itmust find that the copying was not fair.
90. In addition, the Objectors, who assert that their copying behaviour is fair, bear a number of
evidential burdens. They are obliged to adduce evidence, or point to evidence in the record, to permit
the first five recognized factors relating to fairness to be assessed by the Board. Should the Objectors fail
to discharge any of these evidential burdens, the Board cannot weigh any of these factors in their
favour.
91. In respect to the sixth fair dealing factor the effect of the dealing on the markets in which the
works are sold Access Copyright, the party responding to the Objectors fair dealing assertion, bears
the evidential burden to adduce evidence, or point to evidence in the record, concerning the market
impacts of the copying behaviour.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
19/45
18
B.
Fairness Analysis The Purpose of the Dealing
92. Access Copyright submits that the proper consideration of this factor requires the Board to do
more than merely confirm that one or more of the pre-requisite statutory allowable purposes has been
met. In identifying this fairness factor, the Courts must have intended that the fact-finders assessment
of the purpose of the dealing factor look beyond that confirmation. To redundantly restrict the
second-stage analysis of this factor to repeating that the purpose is an allowable one would rob this
fairness factor of any meaning whatsoever.
93. Assessing the fairness of the purpose requires that the Board consider all of the purposes of the
copying and weigh the evidence to determine whether the copiers purposes are, on balance, fair. In
other words, the Board must ask, Is there something about these other purposes that renders the
copying more or less fair? Whether or not the purposes are, on balance, fair requires an assessment of
copyright policy: does the purpose of the copying further the public interest in the encouragement and
dissemination of works of the arts and intellect andobtaining a just reward for the creator?
(underlining added for emphasis).98
The balance sought in copyright must seek to balance all three of
those public policy objectives.
94. Access Copyright submits that the Board ought to consider whether or not the purpose of the
copying was transformative in nature. Canadian courts have yet to determine whether a transformative
purpose is relevant to an assessment of the fairness of the copying behaviour.99
95. Applying copyright policy, the Board should ask, Is the copying transformative, such that a new
audience will experience the expression of the idea or an audience will experience the expression in a
new way? If yes, the copying tends toward fairness because it furthers both the encouragement and
dissemination of works of the arts and intellect without (arguably) infringing on the original authors
right to obtain a just reward for his work.
96. The Board should also ask, Is the copying for a purpose other than the purpose for which the
original work was created? If yes, the copying tends towards fairness if it encourages the creation of
works and the dissemination of works without interfering with the creators just reward. For example,
the purpose of sampling an original musical work may be to create a new transformative or derivative
work. The sample may encourage new works of the arts in terms of the new expression that is created.
In another example, the purpose of the dealing may be to encourage the purchase of the work 100
. These
facts may weigh towards fairness.
97. However, when the purpose of the copying is identical to the purpose underlying the creation of
the original work, or where no sale will result, that dealing tends towards unfairness. If the purpose of
the original work that has been copied was educational in nature and to be used for instruction, and the
portions copied from the work are used solely for the identical purpose, in particular without any
transformative or derivative benefits to the copying, none of the policy objectives of copyright law are
met. As such, the copying will tend to be less fair.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
20/45
19
98. Here, K-12 institutions have copied resources intended for educational purposes and used the
copied portions for the identical purpose. There is no transformative or derivative purpose in the nature
of that copying that would advance copyright policy. Not only do the copies lack any transformative
purpose, but they are not transformative in any way. The copies at issue in this proceeding are merely
slavish, identical duplications of portions of original copyright-protected works.
99. In addition, K-12 teachers copy, and are encouraged by the Guidelines to copy, instead of
purchasing the original works in order to save money.101Barring an access issue (which has not been
proven or alleged in this case), such copying does not further copyright policy in the dissemination of
works of art and intellect. To the contrary, it discourages
works of art and intellect and deprives the
creator of his just reward.
100. Finally, in these proceedings, there are no safeguards in place to prevent the copies from
replacing the original work102
. To the contrary, the copies at issue in this case are made for the purpose
of avoiding the purchase of the original work.
C.
Fairness Analysis The Character of the Dealing
101. An assessment of this factor requires the Board to consider the extent of copying, in the
aggregate, and requires the Board to examine how the works were dealt with 103. A particular dealing
might be unfair if multiple copies of works are being widely distributed....if a single copy of a work is
used for a specific legitimate purpose, or if the copy no longer existed after it was used, this would
favour a finding of fairness104
.
102.
InAlberta (Education), the Objectors did not contest the Boards findings related to the
character of the dealing factor. Because the issue was not before the Court, its reasons are silent on this
factor, other than to identify the Boards error in considering the aggregate amount of copying twice,
once under the character of the dealing factor and again under the amount of the dealing factor,
thereby conflating the two factors105
. The Boards finding that the character of the dealing the
aggregate volume of copying tends towards unfairness was not challenged by the Objectors on judicial
review and was thus left undisturbed by the Court.
103. In their assessment of the copying behaviour in the present proceedings, the Objectors ignored
completely the evidence relating to the character of the dealing.106That evidence confirms that over
300 million pages from works in Access Copyrights repertoire approximately 90 pages per student 107
are copied in each academic year by K-12 institutions. K-12 teachers make multiple copies from works
for wide distribution to the entire class. It is inconceivable that the copying of 90 pages per student per
year is situational or done to help a student understand a particular concept; rather, the copying is pre-
planned and systematic. The Objectors have introduced no evidence that these copies are made to
meet the needs of individual students who are having difficulty understanding a particular concept.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
21/45
20
104. Unlike the SOCAN v. Bellcase, where no copy existed after the preview was heard, where users
did not receive a permanent copy and where the file was automatically deleted from the users
computer108, students (and teachers) keep copies for at least the entire duration of their classes, and
often beyond109 and the copies can be (and are) further reproduced and disseminated by users.110
105.
In addition, the shift in teaching pedagogy from the purchase and use of a textbook for every
child in a class to differentiated instruction and resource-based learning means that copies are not
made to complement a core textbook, but rather, are made as the core learning resource for a class, 111
thereby substituting for the purchase of textbooks. The copying behaviour encouraged by the Guidelines
is thus substitutive and not complementary.112
D.
Fairness Analysis The Amount of the Dealing
i)
Qualitative assessment essential
106.
The amount of the dealing factor requires an assessment of both the quantitative amount of
the copying and the importance of the part copied 113. The amount factoris an examination of the
proportion between the excerpted copy and the entire work114or the proportion of the excerpt used
in relation to the whole work115
.
107. The Guidelines, and the Objectors position in these proceedings, presumptively fix as fair the
copying of all or portion of a work provided the amount copied does not exceed an arbitrary percentage
(10%) or other quantitative segment (e.g.a chapter or an article) of the work as published, without any
qualitative assessment of the importance of the portion copied.
108.
The Objectors bear the burden to establish that the amount of the dealing, considered both
qualitatively and quantitatively, is fair. The evidence in these proceedings116
confirms that, in assessing
this factor, the Objectors experts ignored completely any qualitative aspects of the amount copied.
109. Teachers copy any and all key aspects of an educational work. They copy entire chapters, which
may contain an entire analysis of a given topic. They copy entire poems, articles and short stories from
compilations.117They copy two pages of a textbook designed to contain an entire lesson which may
comprise the essence of the creators expression, created with a significant investment of time, skill and
effort, and which are pedagogically important.118
Such copying very clearly reproduces the heart of the
work and is thus unfair. The Guidelines authorize and encourage this copying behaviour and do not
instruct K-12 teachers to assess any qualitative aspects of the portions copied.
ii)
No impairment of copyright in works comprising a compilation
110. The Boards assessment of this factor must also take into consideration Parliaments clear
instruction119that the creation/publication of a compilation of works which enjoys its own copyright
protection does not impair the protection conferred by theActin respect to the copyright in the
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
22/45
21
individual works comprising the compilation. The decision in Robertson v. Thomson Corp.120
, re-affirmed
Parliaments instruction.
111. In these proceedings, whenever discrete works are published in a compilation, the Guidelines
10% rule permits K-12 teachers to copy the entiretyof one or more works provided the portions
copied fall under the arbitrary ceiling. The 10% ceiling may encompass several poems or short stories
within the compilation. Given that K-12 teachers are not required to use the most restrictive option 121
,
the separate definitions of short excerpt are internally incongruous since the 10% rule (para. 4(a) of
the Guidelines) would permit copying behaviour that exceeds the definition of short excerpt under
paras. 4(c) (f).
112. Moreover, even assuming K-12 teachers restricted themselves to the copying behaviour
permitted by the Guidelines an assumption that is contradicted by the evidence122
113. A finding of fairness would result in the creator/publisher of a work essentially losing all
copyright protection if he chooses to market and monetize his work other than as a stand-alone work.
Analogizing this result to musical works underscores the unfairness of that finding: a song released as a
single would be protected by copyright, but if the song was released as part of an album, the artist and
composer would lose that protection since that single work could be copied for free. That result would
be manifestly unfair and an affront to copyright policy.
compliance with
the Guidelines ignores Parliaments instruction not to impair theActs protection in the discrete works
published within a compilation. When 100% of a discrete work contained within a compilation is copied,
that behaviour is manifestly unfair.
114. In Post-Hearing Question 1.5, the Board asked for a comment in respect to the Objectors
evidence to the effect that in calculating the amount of the dealing in respect to a compilation, the
amount copied must be divided by the total number of pages in the compilation. The relevant
proportion for newspapers and magazines is the portion copied relative to the length of the article, not
the compilation.
115. The Objectors evidence, and any argument they may advance in reliance thereon, runs contrary
to the ratioin Robertson v. Thomson Corp.123
iii)
The Objectors have not met their evidential burden on the amount of the copying factor
which recognizes that the copyright in discrete works
comprising a compilation must be respected. In the context of these tariff proceedings, and the Boards
assessment of fairness, the Board cannot overlook that the effective disaggregation of compilations into
discrete works that is permitted by the Guidelines will result in the expropriation of 100% of the
creators expression if the entirety of that discrete work is copied without compensation. There is
nothing fair about expropriating the entirety of a creators expression.
116. In Post-Hearing Question 1.3, the Board asked how compound copying should be assessed in
the fair dealing analysis. Compound copying describes copying behaviour whereby a teacher returns to
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
23/45
22
the same educational resource at different times to copy discrete additional portions of the work.
Access Copyright filed evidence124
that compound copying occurs in K-12 institutions.
117. In CCH125, the Supreme Court of Canada observed that the dealings with a work may not be fair
if a specific patron of the Great Library submitted numerous requests for multiple reported decisions
from the same work over a short period of time, observing further that there [was] no evidence that
[such behaviour] has occurred. InAlberta (Education), the majority was concerned that the Board
looked at the overall quantity of what [was] disseminated under the amount of the dealing factor, and
thus disregarded the rights of the individual student. It found that the Board conflated its assessment of
the aggregate volume of multiple copies being distributed to entire classes (the character of the dealing)
with an assessment of the proportion between the excerpted copy and the entire work (the amount of
the dealing). As such, the amount of the dealing factor must be looked at from an individual students
perspective and in relation to the qualitative and quantitative proportions taken from the work.126
118. Access Copyright filed evidence that, during the two-week Volume Study, teachers engaged in
compound or sequential copying; that is, copying by the same teacher from the same work. 127 The
Board may draw a reasonable inference that individual students receive copied portion after copied
portion from the same book made by the same teacher in the same class in the same year. This copying
behaviour is consistent with the evidence before the Board that K-12 schools use class sets of
textbooks128, (e.g. where 90 students share a set of 30 textbooks, and that those sets are copied for
students homework assignments.129). This behaviour is also consistent with the evidence that Ministries
of Education no longer purchase a core textbook for every child in the class. 130Teachers copy a few
pages each time they go to the photocopier and return to copy from the same book for the same class,
over and over again.
119.
In their analysis, Drs. Wilk and Whitehead conceded that they did not account at all for the
phenomenon of compound copying131
. The Objectors led no evidence from teachers. Furthermore, the
Volume Study measured copying only for a two-week period and therefore could not capture the
amount of a work received by an individual student over the course of a school year. Thus, the Board
cannot determine the volume of compound copying.
120. In the circumstances, the amount of the dealing with respect to an individual work cannot be
assessed in this proceeding. The quantity copied by multiple visits to a photocopier by the same teacher
to copy excerpts from the same work is understated since, in the Objectors analysis, each successive
visit to the photocopier resets the amount of the copying from the work at zero instead of being added
to the percentage copied from the same work on previous visits to the photocopier. Therefore, the
uncontradicted evidence is that compound copying occurs but no quantitative estimate of the extent to
which teachers engage in that behaviour is available to the Board.
121. The Objectors were the only parties to these proceedings who could shed light on the frequency
of such behaviour and the typical amount of the work copied. The Objectors bore the burden to adduce
evidence on this phenomenon. Such evidence could have been led by calling teachers, or panels of
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
24/45
23
teachers, as witnesses or, better yet, polling them to gather evidence as to the incidence of compound
copying and introducing this polling evidence through Mr. Chodorowicz. He confirmed 132
that he had
polled teacher behaviour in the past in connection with the inaugural K-12 tariff proceedings. In the
absence of such evidence, the Board cannot rely on the Volume Study data or the Objectors analysis of
the data to accurately assess the amount of the dealing. An adverse inference may be drawn if, without
reasonable explanation, a party fails to adduce evidence available to it that could have resolved a
disputed issue. In this evidentiary vacuum, the Board can only find that compound copying occurs in K-
12 schools and, in the context of the amount of dealing factor, tends toward unfair dealing.
122.
That finding ought to be made irrespective of the number of copying occurrences, the amount
of the copying and the delay between each occurrence. All such subsidiary details mistakenly focus
solely on the quantitative aspects of the behaviour on a particular day at a particular time, and disregard
the phenomenon of a teacher returning to the same book throughout the year 133
and the paramount
consideration of the qualitative aspects of the portions copied. Given that the portions copied are
substantial from a qualitative perspective, the particulars requested by the Board would not be helpful
to the fairness analysis.
E.
Fairness Analysis Alternatives to the Dealing
123. In CCH, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded, based upon the evidentiary record before it,
that it was not apparent that there were available alternatives to the copying activities carried out by
the Great Library at the request of patrons of the Law Society who were engaged in research-based
activities. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that it would be burdensome to expect
remotely located patrons to travel to Toronto each time they wanted to track down a legal source and
would be unreasonable to expect them to conduct all their research from the original works physically
restricted to the Great Library. With all reasonable alternatives to copying ruled out, the copying
activities carried out tended to be fair.134
124. InAlberta (Education), the Supreme Court of Canada understood that what was at issue was the
situational copying of little bits (and much less than what could be copied under the Access Copyright
licence) from multiple educational resources to meet the unexpected needs of particular students and
that teachers only photocopy to complement existing textbooks135. In that factual matrix, the Court
found that buying books for each student is not a realistic alternative to teachers copying short
excerpts to supplement student textbooks136
.
125. In these proceedings, the evidence establishes that publishers offer reasonable alternatives to
copying the content for free (e.g. McGraw Hills iLit digital, disaggregated collection of literary
selections).137 One of the Objectors witnesses from the Manitoba Textbook Bureau confirmed that it
could purchase individual chapters from the publishers separate from the textbook.138
In the current
factual matrix, purchasing the content is clearly a reasonable alternative to copying it for free.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
25/45
24
126. The evidence is that the copying will substitute for the purchase of the works from which copies
are made139and permit teachers to get around the financial shortages they are facing 140; will lead to the
unrestricted copying of entire works published within a compilation; and will lead to entire chapters
(even if they comprise 45% of a works) being copied without any compensation to the rightsholders.
There is also evidence before the Board that K-12 schools no longer purchase a core textbook for every
child in a class and that textbook sales are declining.141
127.
The pedagogical shift to resource-based learning requires teachers to copy from a variety of
resources, including published books, magazines and newspapers. This evidentiary record is markedly
distinct from the facts and circumstances cited by the Court inAlberta (Education). In this context ,
where teachers photocopy in order to create
their core resource (as opposed to supplementing one that
has already been purchased), buying those professionally published resources is certainly a reasonable
alternative to copying them.
128. As with the assessment of all fair dealing factors, the Boards consideration of this factor ought
to promote copyright policy. If there are no reasonable alternatives to copying a work (such as was the
case in CCH)and copying must occur in order to disseminate the work or to encourage works of the arts,
then the dealing will tend towards fairness. If however, there are
alternatives to copying and copying is
not reasonably necessary to disseminate the work or to achieve the ultimate purpose of the user, the
dealing will tend to be unfair.
129. The Objectors have not introduced any evidence that there were no alternatives to the dealing.
The Guidelines do not require or instruct K-12 teachers to consider any other available alternative to the
copying from published educational resources. To the contrary, the Objectors evidence in these
proceedings is that teachers have a myriad of other alternatives to copying from published works, such
as open access content, self-created works and the purchase of individual chapters.142
Given all of those
alternatives, it is unfair that teachers copy, and are encouraged by the Guidelines to copy, from
copyright-protected published works.
130. On this record, there is no evidence that the copying activities in question were reasonably
necessary in order to meet the students educational objectives. To the contrary, the purchase of the
original works (including excerpts thereof) or a licence to copy the original works would meet the same
objective. In the absence of such evidence that the copying was necessary to achieve the ultimate
purpose because there were no alternatives available, the Boards assessment of this issue must tend
toward unfairness.
F.
Fairness Analysis Nature of the Works
131. In CCH, the court found that, if a work has not been published, the dealing may be more fair in
that its reproduction could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work one of the goals of
copyright law143. All of the works at issue in this proceeding are published works. This fact related to
the nature of the works tends to make the dealing unfair.
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
26/45
25
132. In addition, the works in CCH that had been copied in strict accordance with the Access to the
Law Policy were editorial versions of judicial decisions (including head-notes) and other legal resources
essential to legal research. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Federal Court of Appeal that it
was generally in the public interest that access to judicial decisions (funded by the public purse) and
other legal resources not be unjustifiably restrained. This observation was also made in recognition of
the fact that, without permitting the copying behaviour at issue in CCH, lawyers in remote Ontario
locations without ease of access to the Great Library would essentially have to replicate the Great
Librarys holdings in order to have equal access to the law.
133. The nature of the works at issue in the present proceedings educational works created and
published for profit many of which are customized to the requirements stipulated by the Ministries of
Education triggers no access to law considerations or other public interest. The copying of the works in
question does not engage the broader public interest to ensure the public have unfettered access to the
law. These facts related to the nature of the works tend to make the dealing unfair.
134. Indeed, in the inaugural tariff proceedings, the Board held that access to classroom materials
did not raise the same public interest concerns as access to legal resources.144
Instead, the works copied
were educational works, tailor-made for and marketed to the very users that copied them. Moreover, as
also noted by the Board, there was rarely an alternative to a legal judgment; but a textbook can always
be replaced with other resources. As a consequence, the Board found that a consideration of this factor
tended toward unfairness, a finding that the Objectors did not challenge on judicial review. The nature
of the works at issue in the present tariff proceedings has remained unchanged since the 2009 Board
decision.
135.
The evidence confirms that the bulk of the copies at issue in these proceedings (44% of total
copying) are made from textbooks145. Consumables were the second highest source of copying in 2012,
representing 23% of the total copying in that year 146. The works at issue are published original works,
created with skill and judgment by professional authors, many of them educators. They are of high
quality and originality and require a great deal of research, pedagogical expertise and editorial
judgment147. The Objectors require that the publishers works be diverse and represent Canadian
content, Canadian examples and Canadians of note, primarily authored and produced in Canada.148
In
addition, the nature of consumables workbooks which are created and intended for one-time use
makes the copying of them manifestly unfair as the copying eliminates the need to purchase them. An
overall assessment of the nature of the works copied tends toward unfairness.
136. In Post-Hearing Question 1.4, the Board asked whether, in making its assessment of fair dealing,
it ought to make distinctions between core textbooks or those prescribed by the Ontario Ministry on
the Trillium Listfrom other works. The answer is no. The distinction between a core and
supplemental resource is relevant only to whether it meets or exceeds a certain percentage of the
requirements of a particular curriculum. The distinction in no way dilutes the value of any resource, no
matter how K12 institutions define it. For example, a novel is not defined as a core resource but is
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
27/45
26
an invaluable supplemental instructional resource to teach English. The copying from such works
ought not be treated any differently than copying from a core math textbook.149
137. As discussed below, the substantial copying from all copyright-protected works encouraged by
the Guidelines negatively impacts the publishers markets for their works, irrespective of the core vs.
supplemental definition prescribed by K-12 institutions.
G. Fairness Analysis - Effect of the Dealing on Publishers Markets
i)
Overview
138. The parties appear to have a fundamental disagreement concerning the scope of this fair
dealing factor. Access Copyright submits that a plain reading of CCH, in particular paragraph 72, supports
its contention that in assessing impacts and likely impacts of the copying behaviour, the Board must
consider all likely impacts upon the markets for the publishers works, including all suppliers
(publishers and creators) of educational resources to those markets and the users (ultimately students)
of such resources.
139.
The Objectors, on the other hand, contend that the onlyrelevant consideration is whether
Access Copyright is able to make a causal or concrete link between copying behaviour and a
corresponding decrease in the sales of the works copied. That position runs counter to a plain reading
ofCCH.
140. Even if the Objectors myopic position on this fair dealing factor were accepted as a correct
interpretation of CCH,the evidence on this record establishes, among other negative impacts, that since
the implementation of the Guidelines in 2013:
a) the decrease in primary sales of educational resources of the six largest publishers in 2013 has
been double the decrease in sales observed in 2012150
;
b) at least one publisher has ceased the publication of consumables and another has ceased the
publication of books of plays and reduced the publication of anthologies151
;
c) by Mr. Chodorowiczs own admission, that copying behaviour will, in fact, substitute for the
purchase of the works from which copies are made;152
and
d) the copying behaviour permitted and encouraged under the Guidelines has otherwise had and
will have a direct substitutive impact on the works from which copies are made. 153
141. Access Copyright has also tendered a substantial body of evidence, much of it unchallenged by
the Objectors, that the copying behaviour, the implementation of the Guidelines and the Objectors
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
28/45
27
cessation of royalty payments has already had, and will likely have in the future, a number of
detrimental (in some cases dramatically so, e.g. Oxford University Press154
) impacts on:
a) publishers, in terms of a reduction in primary sales, the elimination of secondary licensing
income, the elimination of certain genres of works (e.g. consumables and anthologies) made
particularly vulnerable to copying under the Guidelines, and a reduction of investment in the
development of new works) ;
b)
Canadian creators, in terms of the loss of secondary licensing income and reduced demand ( and
primary royalties) for their services; and
c) the quantity, diversity, indigeneity and quality of educational resources available to the K-12
education system, resulting in long term negative impacts on Canadian students.
142. The Objectors summarily dismiss Access Copyrights evidence of negative market impacts as
overly dramatic and entirely speculative. The evidence upon which the Objectors exclusively rely to
respond to Access Copyrights evidence is that of Mr. Chodorowicz. The Board ought to give little or no
weight to his evidence since, in a number of respects, the facts upon which he relied to provide his
opinion were inaccurate or unreliable155; and the testimony he gave, both in his expert report and in
examination-in-chief, was significantly undermined through cross-examination.156
ii)
Impacts arising from the elimination of secondary licensing income
143. It is not disputed that, effective January 2013, the Objectors ceased all payments to Access
Copyright under the previous certified tariffs once the Guidelines were published. The aggregate
financial impact on publishers and creators was the loss of approximately 13.5 million dollars per
annum.
144. The loss of that income (for which publishers did not have to incur any costs they go right to
the bottom line157
) has resulted in :
i. the shuttering of Oxford University Presss K-12 publishing division 158
;
ii. layoffs at McGraw Hill Ryerson159
;
iii. less money to publishers to invest in new titles160
;
iv. a strong disincentive to Canadian creators to continue making creative contributions to K-12
resources161
; and
v. according to a report that Mr. Chodorowicz considers authoritative, problematic legal
interpretations of the previous law have nearly decimated the market for licensing
8/11/2019 Access Copyright Legal Arguments.canadian Schools
29/45
28
educational uses of copyright materials, including significant damage on the publishing
sector in particular (underlining added for emphasis).162
iii)
Impacts on primary sales
145.
In addition to the evidence of such impacts referred to in the Overview, the facts provided by
the publisher witnesses and the expert opinion of Michael Dobner163
provide clear evidence, that was
unshaken on cross-examination, of direct material impacts and likely impacts from the actual copying
behaviour, the increased copying behaviour encouraged by the Guidelines and the elimination of royalty
payments for such copying, including reduced profitability and the substitution/elimination of works.
iv)
Impacts on creators
146. The creator survey164commissioned by Access Copyright and designed and executed by Mr.
Gauthier gave a voice to creators. Mr. Dobner opined on the results of the survey to the effect that as
a direct result of the implementation of the Guidelines and the consequential elimination of secondary
licensing income; and the likely reduction in primary royalties arising from fewer mandates from
publishers, a significant number of creators will cease their creative contributions to K-12 resources,
robbing the market of the skills and talents of the creators.165
None of this evidence was rebutted by
the Objectors.
v)
Impacts on investment in K-12 resources
147. The expert evidence of Mr. Dobner, factually supported by the publisher witnesses,clearly
established that the implementation of the Guidelines and the cessation of payments under the tariff
will likely reduce the number and diversity of new titles in Canada and the redirection of foreign-parent
investment to other foreign jurisdictions where return on investment is greater. 166
vi)
Impacts on quality, diversity and indigeneity o
Recommended