Commission du droit d'auteur Canada
Canada

Liens de la barre de menu commune


Liens institutionnels


AVIS ET ORDONNANCES

À noter que, de façon générale, les avis et ordonnances sont émis dans la langue du dossier.


Access Copyright - Tarifs pour les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux (2005-2014)


 

22 mai 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-029]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d’auteur du Canada vient de rendre sa décision portant sur le Tarif des redevances à percevoir pour la reproduction, au Canada, de 2005 à 2014, d’œuvres dans le répertoire d’Access Copyright par des employés des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux. La décision, le tarif homologué ainsi qu’un communiqué de presse et un feuillet d’information sont affichés sur le site web de la Commission (www.cb-cda.gc.ca) sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Décisions récentes ».

Veuillez trouver ci-joint, pour vos dossiers, une copie électronique de la décision ainsi que du tarif, de même qu’un communiqué de presse et un feuillet d’information.

Pièce jointes :

- Access Copyright (Gouvernements) (2005-20014) Tarif;
- Access Copyright (Gouvernements) (2005-20014) Décision;
- Access Copyright (Gouvernements) (2005-20014) Feuillet d’information;
- Access Copyright (Gouvernements) (2005-20014) Communiqué de presse.


 

2 septembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is asked to respond to the Objectors' request below by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 3, 2014. The Objectors may reply by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 4, 2014.

De : Aidan O'Neill
Envoyé : 2 septembre 2014 13:04
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : Ariel Thomas; A Wanda Noel; Jordan Snel; Bruce Green; Nancy Brooks; Erin Finlay; Randall Hofley

Objet : Access Copyright - Provincial and Territorial Governments Tariff (2005-2009 and 2010-2014)

Dear Gilles,

In its Order of July 21, the Board asked Access Copyright and the Objectors to "calculate the weighted total number of pages copied, per FTE, per annum", based on the Board's preliminary conclusions on the number of compensable pages for each of the events drawn from the Volume Study. This is exactly what the Objectors did in their submissions to the Board dated August 28, 2014. In this regard, the Objectors limited their submissions to performing the specific calculations requested by the Board. The Board did not ask for anything more from the parties.

Access Copyright's submissions, of course, go far beyond responding to the Board's request. Instead, Access Copyright has tried to ascertain the Board's rationale in focusing on the 26 transactions identified in its Order and has then addressed Access Copyright's "concerns" with the Board's preliminary conclusions. Simply put, Access Copyright opposes the Board's preliminary conclusions and, in doing so, has made a number of arguments as to why the Board should reverse itself.

The Objectors very much object, on a procedural basis, to Access Copyright being permitted to proceed in this manner. As such, the Objectors respectfully submit that the submissions made in Erin Finlay's letter of August 28 (attached) are improper and should be ruled procedurally inadmissible by the Board as they were not made further to the Board's Order of July 21 that certain limited mathematical calculations be performed by the parties.

If the Board has any questions about this matter, please let either Wanda Noel or me know. Thank you very much.

Aidan

Attachment: 2014-08-28 – Letter to Copyright Board – PT Tariff Volume (final).pdf


 

21 juillet 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find attached the Board’s Order with respect to page calculations.

Attachment: Order of the Board – Page Calculations – 2014 07 21.pdf


 

13 mai 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access’ request to extend the deadlines to respond to the Board’s questions is granted.

Parties shall provide their answers no later than Friday, June 6, 2014 and their replies to each other no later than Friday, June 13, 2014.


 

6 mai 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please see attached an Order of the Board in the above mentioned file.

Attachment: Order of the Board – May 6, 2014.pdf


 

11 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

Access' request is granted. Access shall file its response and identification of non-affiliates' works Access considers to be in repertoire no later than Monday July 22, 2013. The Objectors shall file their reply no later than Tuesday, August 6, 2013.


 

4 juin 2013flèche par en haut

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

On May 6, 2013, the Board ordered Access and the Objectors to prepare a sample corresponding to Groups 1, 2, and 3 and to analyze the data from this sample with respect to compensability and repertoire.

On May 27, the Consortium wrote to the Board, informing it that there remained a discrepancy of four copying events between the sample prepared by it and by Access. While this discrepancy was being resolved, the Board suspended the timetable for analysis of the sample. Filings with the Board by Access and the Consortium later that week evidenced an agreement between them that the sample consists of 291 copying events.

The revised timetable is as follows:

  • Consortium/BC provision of sample survey data and reasons why each event is not compensable: no later than Monday, June 17, 2013;
  • Access Copyright response and identification of non-affiliates' works Access considers to be in repertoire: no later than Monday, July 15, 2013;
  • Consortium/BC reply: no later than Monday, July 29, 2013.

 

28 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access can reply to the Consortium and BC's submissions by no later than Thursday, May 30, 2013. The timetable for the rest of this matter, as set in the Board's Order of May 6, 2013, no longer applies as a result of parties taking issues with some part of the Order. The Board will rule on the new timetable in due course.


 

6 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please see the attached Order of the Board.

Attachment: Order of the Board - May 6, 2013.pdf


 

27 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As agreed by the parties, the Board sets the following timetable in respect of the issue of "Compensability" described in its Notice of March 14, 2013:

  • Access comments on the division of copying events on p. 35 of Exhibit Consortium-3: no later than Monday, April 8, 2013
  • Consortium/BC response: no later than Monday, April 22, 2013
  • Access Copyright reply: no later than Monday, April 29, 2013

[Board Ruling]

The remaining timetable will be determined at the time of the Ruling, as per the following:

  • Consortium/BC provision of sample survey data and reasons why each event is not compensable: no later than four weeks after Board Ruling
  • Access Copyright response: no later than four weeks after Consortium/BC submissions
  • Consortium/BC reply: no later than two weeks after Access Copyright response

 

14 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please see the attached Notice of the Board and related documents.

Attachment: 1) Notice of the Board.pdf 2) The Board Staff's Calculations.pdf 3) Difference in means v1d.xls


 

25 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Consortium's request, described below and agreed by all, is granted.


De : A. O'Neill
Envoyé : 25 janvier 2013 13:04
À : G. McDougall
Cc : N. Brooks et al.
Objet : Access Copyright - Provincial/Territorial Tariffs 2005-2009 and 2010-2014 - Legal Briefs

Dear Gilles,

For certain logistical reasons, the Consortium is unable to complete its legal brief with respect to the matter under reference by today's deadline. As such, we have requested the consent of legal counsel to Access Copyright and the Government of British Columbia for an extension of the filing deadline to Monday, January 28. To this, they have each generously agreed. As such, the Consortium would ask that the Board extend the deadline to next Monday for the filing of the legal briefs by all parties to this tariff proceeding.

As I understand from Mr. Green, he has already sent his legal brief to the Board.

Nonetheless, in the event that the Board consents to this request, he will only serve the other parties with his legal brief on Monday. We look forward to hearing from the Board about this matter at your earliest convenience. In the event you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact me direct. Thank you.

Aidan


 

11 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright's attached request in the file mentioned above, agreed upon by the objectors, is granted. Parties shall now file their replies in respect of the questions from the Board by no later than Friday, February 1, 2013.


 

10 décembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As agreed between the parties (please see below), legal briefs in this matter shall be filed no later than Friday, January 25, 2013. Replies can be filed no later than Friday, February 22, 2013.

Dear Gilles,

Pursuant to the Board's Notice of December 4 below, the parties have discussed a possible schedule for the exchange of legal briefs in the matter under reference, and have agreed that the first round of submissions should be due by no later than Friday, January 25, 2013, and that the replies should be due by no later than Friday, February 22, 2013.

If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact any one of us. Thank you.

Aidan


 

4 décembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The parties are asked to address the following issues:

  • fair dealing, and more specifically, (a) how to account for situations where more than one purpose was indicated, one of which is not an allowable fair dealing purpose, and (b) the extent to which answers to questions 43 to 53 of the questionnaire were taken into account in assessing the fairness of the dealing;
  • insubstantial copying, including whether (a) the page (as opposed to the chapter, paragraph, percentage or other measure) is the smallest unit of a work and (b) whether "at a minimum insubstantial copying has to be the smallest unit of a work". [Tr. Vol. 9 at 2064/19-21] In this respect, the parties' attention is drawn to the Board's decision in Breakthrough Films & Television Inc., Toronto (Ontario), http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences/156r-b.pdf
  • "users rights" in general, including whether there are such rights other than those listed in the Copyright Act and if so, what they are;
  • any other relevant legal issue.

The parties are also asked to state whether (and if not, why) they agree with the following propositions.

  1. What is in the repertoire of Access is
    • what rights holders bring to it through the process of affiliation, and
    • what foreign collectives and COPIBEC ask Access to administer for them in Canada outside Quebec.
  2. Not all works for which Access distributes royalties are in its repertoire. Not all works in repertoire generate royalties. Works in repertoire that are not captured during a distribution survey generate no royalties but are in the repertoire. Works not in repertoire that are captured during a distribution survey receive a share of royalties but remain out of the repertoire.
  3. The owner of a non-repertoire work that is captured during a distribution survey and who cashes the royalty cheque received from Access does not bring that work into the repertoire. However, by virtue of agency by ratification, the owner of the non-repertoire work no longer can complain of copyright violation by the user on account of the copy associated to the cashed cheque. The author can still complain of copyright violation for any other copy, even of the same work and by the same user, because the work remains a non-repertoire work.
  4. The indemnity clause is not a licence to use non-repertoire works. It is a promise that Access will indemnify the user if the owner of a non-repertoire work demands compensation for the use of that work. The user still infringes copyright and the owner of the non-repertoire work is entitled to seek compensation for that infringement.

Parties are to provide the Board with agreed deadlines for both submissions and replies no later than Friday, December 7, 2012.


 

4 décembre, 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to provide answers to the attached Board's questions in the above-referenced file by no later than Friday, December 21, 2012. Parties are allowed to provide replies no later than Friday, January 18, 2013.

Attachment: Access Government - Questions from the Board.pdf


 

18 octobre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access shall file forthwith the documentation referred to in its application of October 18, 2012. Access shall also file the equivalent documentation for the reports of its own expert.


 

25 septembre 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

On September 20, Access Copyright (Access) applied for an order directing the Consortium to provide certain computer codes. Alternative remedies which need not be repeated here were proposed. Access also requested the right for Mr. Gauthier to file an amendment to his supplementary report.

The Consortium responded that it is willing to supply anything the Board orders, as long as Access is also ordered to respond to similar inquiries. The response describes at length the Consortium's perception of what happened and counsel's irritation with the process.

The reply of Access consists mostly of a reaction to the assertions found in the Consortium's response.

No purpose would be served by listing the questions at issue or providing further details of the documents filed by the parties.

The following seems clear. First, had it known the questions Access intended to ask, the Consortium would have addressed other, undetermined questions to Mr. Gauthier. Second, the Consortium wants Access to show as much of its hand as it asks. Third, Access answered all the questions of the Consortium concisely, but satisfactorily. Fourth, nothing would be served by an attempt to determine precisely what happened or the source of counsel's mutual frustration. Fifth, the Board must break the existing stalemate. Sixth, the parties' experts need to understand what the others did if they are to comment intelligently on their vis-à-vis' evidence. Seventh, it is out of the question to allow any further information exchange to postpone the start of the hearings.

Consequently, the Board orders as follows.

  1. Each party is entitled to receive all documents supporting the other party's expert report. That includes computer codes. A party is also entitled to reasonable particulars if its expert is unable to understand what another expert is saying.
  2. The parties' experts are in a better position than anyone to determine what they need of each other in order to understand their respective reports. Furthermore, to paraphrase counsel for the Consortium, these experts can bang this out between them without any further involvement from counsel. Consequently, Mr. Gauthier and Professors Whitehead and Wilk shall forthwith discuss the matter among themselves. Given the absence of counsel from these discussions, they will take place on a without prejudice basis.
  3. Experts shall then exchange lists of what they require in order to understand their respective reports. The requested information shall be provided as soon as possible, unless a motion is brought to the Board to the effect that the request is unreasonable or excessive or that the requested information is irrelevant.
  4. The schedule for the remainder of the proceedings shall remain unchanged. Necessary adjustments to the experts' evidence can be made on application, in due course, or in the course of the experts' testimony.
  5. To the extent experts are satisfied they understand what the others did, there will be no need to file with the Board the information exchanged as a result of this order. To the extent disagreements subsist as to what an expert means, the parties may file the documents necessary for the Board to deal with such disagreements.

 

20 septembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Consortium shall provide a response to Access request, by no later than Monday, September 24, 2012. Access can provide a reply no later than Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at noon.


 

18 septembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access's request described below is granted.

Dear Mr. McDougall:

In its case filed in these tariff proceedings on May 4, 2012, Access Copyright included as Exhibit AC-2 the joint witness statement of Maureen Cavan and Roanie Levy dated May 3, 2012. Ms. Cavan has recently announced that she will be retiring from Access Copyright and, accordingly, Access Copyright is seeking the Board's permission to have Ms. Levy testify as the sole witness as to the matters described in Exhibit AC-2.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the above.

Yours truly,

Nancy Brooks


 

11 septembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Objectors may provide comments on Access request reproduced below by no later than Tuesday, September 11, 2012. Access may reply by no later than Wednesday, September 12, 2012.


 

17 août 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Following the Consortium and the government of British Columbia's request of August 16, 2012 (attached), as well as Access Copyright's consent to the request, the Board grants the request and sets the remainder of the schedule of proceedings for the above-noted proceedings as follows:

Filing of Consortium's and the government of British Columbia's Statement of Case by no later than Friday, August 31, 2012;

Filing of Access Copyright's reply Case by no later than Friday, September 28, 2012;

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, October 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.

Attachment: Letter to G. McDougall requesting Filing extension.pdf


 

17 mai 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is asked to provide a copy of the consent of the government of Ontario referred to in the second paragraph of its letter of today to the Board.

Attachment: Access Copyright - Provincial and Territorial Governments\17may2012 Letter to G McDougall.pdf (Attachment to the letter is not attached as it contains confidential information)


 

8 mai 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is asked to confirm the following in respect of its Case filed on May 4, 2012:

  • - the only information Access asks be treated as confidential is the list of affiliates, information relating to the Ontario licence and some responses of foreign RROs (Switzerland, Honk Kong, South Africa) found in Exhibit AC-5; and
  • - the text highlighted in yellow in Exhibit AC-4, Appendix D, Letter 3 is not confidential.

None of the information Access Copyright claims to be confidential appears to be. Access has until Monday, May 14, 2012 to convince the Board otherwise. Unless the Board is so convinced, the information will be made part of the public record.


 

2 mai 2012

The requested permission is granted.

Access Copyright's request:
In accordance with the Board's Ruling on this matter, Access Copyright is required to file its case by this Friday, May 4, 2012. I write to request permission from the Board for Access Copyright to file and serve the electronic version of its case on Friday, with the 10 paper copies to be filed with the Board on Monday, May 7, 2012.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this request.


 

15 mars 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The reasons of the Board with respect to the preliminary application in the above-mentioned file is available on our website at the following address: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html.

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les motifs de la Commission à l'égard de la requête préliminaire déposée dans le dossier en rubrique est disponible sur notre site web à l'adresse : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

7 février 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright's request below is granted.

Access Copyright's request: 
I am writing further to the Board's order dated June 4, 2010 regarding the treatment of confidential information in the Provincial/ Territorial Tariffs proceeding. The Board's order restricts disclosure of confidential documents to five representatives of each recipient. Access Copyright is seeking leave of the Board to designate four additional Access Copyright employees to whom the confidential information may be disclosed. Access Copyright is in the process of preparing its case for filing with the Board, including analysis and organization of interrogatory responses and, given the task to be accomplished, it requires four more employees to get involved in that preparation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this request.


 

27 janvier 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The objectors are asked to respond to Access Copyright's request below by no later than Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Access may reply by no later than Thursday, February 2, 2012.

Access Copyright's request:
Dear Mr. McDougall:

I am writing further to the Board's order dated June 4, 2010 regarding the treatment of confidential information in the Provincial/ Territorial Tariffs proceeding. The Board's order restricts disclosure of confidential documents to five representatives of each recipient. Access Copyright is seeking leave of the Board to designate four additional Access Copyright employees to whom the confidential information may be disclosed. Access Copyright is in the process of preparing its case for filing with the Board, including analysis and organization of interrogatory responses and, given the task to be accomplished, it requires four more employees to get involved in that preparation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this request.


 

12 janvier 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The decision of January 5, 2012 with respect to the above-mentioned file contained grammatical errors. A revised version of the decision correcting these errors is attached. This new version is also available on the Board's website at the following address: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html. We apologize for any inconvenience this might have cause.

Attachment: Access copyright - Crown Immunity application.pdf


 

6 janvier 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Decision of the Board in respect of the above-mentioned file is available on our website at the following address: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html.

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La décision de la Commission à l'égard du dossier en rubrique est disponible sur notre site web à l'adresse : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

7 octobre 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties should take for granted that the Board has consulted or may consult:

Royal Commission on Patents, Copyright and Industrial Designs, Report on Copyright (1957)
A.A. Keyes and C. Brunet, Copyright in Canada: Proposals for a Revision of the Law (1977)
B. Torno, Crown Copyright in Canada: a Legacy of Confusion (1980)
J Erola and F. Fox, From Gutenberg to Telidon: a Guide to Canada's Copyright Revision Proposals (1984)
A Charter of Rights for Creators, Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revision of Copyright (1985)
Michel Côté and Marcel Massé, Government Response to the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revision of Copyright (1986)

Parties should also take for granted that the panel will not rely on anything contained in these reports without first affording parties the opportunity to comment on the relevant passages.


 

5 octobre 2011

ORDER OF THE BOARD

During the course of the hearing, the Chairman raised the question of whether there were documents which existed at the time the Copyright Act was amended that indicated the context in which the issue of Crown Immunity was considered.

Mr. O'Neill, on behalf of the Consortium, interpreted the Chairman's remarks as a request to file further documentation, if any existed, and as a consequence filed a letter dated September 30, 2011 which contained excerpts of a document prepared in 1985, which spoke to the issue of Crown Immunity.

Prior to the receipt of the letter, the Board itself became aware of certain public documents bearing on this issue.

The Board permits the filing of this letter and documents.

Access Copyright has leave to file a response and any documents relevant to this issue no later than Tuesday, October 11, 2011. There will be no oral hearing on this issue unless the Board so decides.


 

12 août 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

Based on the arguments and comments filed by the Consortium and British Columbia ("the Objectors") on July 25, 2011 and by Access Copyright on July 25 and August 8, the only remaining issue that the Board needs to address relating to the design of the proposed survey is the question identified as C.3 in the Board's ruling of December 17, 2010: Should the anchor questions be included in the full survey?

The Board agrees with Access Copyright that, at this stage, its only burden is to demonstrate that the information sought, while potentially relevant, does not undermine the survey process. The Objectors do not dispute the statement that no respondent left the questionnaire on the anchor questions and that only 4% of respondents chose not to answer them. Furthermore, based on the Board's understanding of the purpose and design of anchor questions in general, and its experience with such questions in the private copying tariff files in particular, there is nothing inherently unsound in the approach Access proposes. Whether and to what extent these questions should be used as anchors in this instance is best left for argument after the parties file their statement of case.

Consequently, the anchor questions relating to vacation days shall be included in the full survey.

The Board's preliminary view is that the conduct and results of the pre-test remain relevant to these proceedings even though the parties have come to an agreement on the conduct of the survey in all save one aspect. Parties are therefore asked to retain all information relevant to the conduct and results of the pre-test for the duration of the present tariff process.


 

6 juillet 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The hearing for the above-cited matter, originally scheduled to start on Tuesday, October 2, 2012, is now rescheduled to start on Tuesday, October 23, 2012. The remainder of the schedule is unchanged.


 

11 mai 2011

The parties' request is granted.

The parties' request:

I am writing to request a slight change to the Board's schedule -- which was approved in the Board's ruling dated December 17, 2010 -- with respect to Access Copyright's provincial and territorial government tariff proceeding.

In this regard, the Consortium has recently requested the consent of Access Copyright to changing the date for the filing with the Board of the parties' respective submissions relating to survey design from Monday, July 18 to Monday, July 25. Access Copyright and British Columbia have both consented to this change.

This extra week will allow the parties to analyze the results of the pre-test more fully and, hopefully, assist them in preparing more informed submissions to the Board relating to the final survey design.

The date set in the Board's ruling of December 17 for the filing of reply submissions, August 8, 2011, will remain unchanged -- although the time provided to the parties in order to prepare their replies will, of course, be reduced from three to two weeks.

We would ask that the Board agree to this requested change to the existing schedule. If you have any questions about this matter, please let either Wanda or me know. Thank you.


 

2 mai 2011

All responses to interrogatories referred to in the April 21, 2011 Board's Ruling, attached for convenience [See below for the Board's Ruling], should be provided by no later than Monday, May 30, 2011 with the exception of Interrogatory 5 with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and Yukon, for which the deadline remains as previously set.


 

21 avril 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD 

In regards to the issues raised concerning the non-immunity interrogatory deficiencies, the Copyright Board rules as follows:

Interrogatory 5

With respect to Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and Yukon: 
The agreements that Access has received to date from the province or territory shall be deemed to be the only ones that are responsive to this question, that exist and that are in the possession and control of the province or territory. The province or territory shall be precluded from producing any document that would be responsive to this question without leave of the Board. This order will not apply if the province or territory provides a sample of agreements as per the Board's May 18, 2010 ruling no later than by Friday, May 20, 2011

With respect to Alberta G2: 
Answered. Access is entitled to what exists. If the answers are not in documents, Access is not entitled to a further answer. 

With respect to Manitoba G17, Newfoundland and Labrador G2, G5-4 OCIO and G14-1: 
The province shall provide what exists in the form it exists. 

With respect to New Brunswick G3: 
The province shall provide what exists in the form it exists. The reference by Access to "unidentifiable" documents is unclear. As long as the province has provided what they have without any edition or redaction, Access is entitled to nothing more. 

With respect to New Brunswick G22: 
Answered. 

With respect to Nunavut:  
The territory shall confirm whether there are documents that would be responsive to b) or d) if Access was correct in stating that the agreements authorize the territory to copy published works. If the answer is no, the matter is settled. If the answer is yes and if the territory still resists providing the documents to Access, then Access shall send to the Board the agreements it says authorize the territory to copy published works. On that basis, the Board will decide whether it should order the territory to provide additional documents. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G1:  
The province shall provide what it has that is responsive to the question, other than any licence, existing or expired, with Access.

With respect to Saskatchewan G5: 
Confidentiality is not a valid reason to withhold a document. The province shall provide what it has that is responsive to the question. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G6:  
The province shall provide what it has that is responsive to the question. As stated in the Board's ruling of November 12, 2010, Access is only entitled to what exists, which needs not be organized in any specific fashion, or come from any particular source. A government is a single entity. The answer can come from any source. However, an answer must be provided. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G7: 
To the extent documents are incomplete, the province shall provide complete documents. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G8:  
The province shall provide any agreement mentioned in a response as well as any document responsive to paragraph b) or d), in the form it exists. 

With respect to Yukon G4:  
The agreements referred to clearly allow some form of copying. The territory shall provide the documents offered as well as any other agreement that authorizes any form of analogue or digital copying. The territory shall also provide any document responsive to paragraph b) or d), in the form it exists. 

With respect to Yukon G6: 
The territory shall provide all specifications, terms and conditions referred to in the document provided, to the extent they exist and in the form they exist.

Interrogatory 21

With respect to Manitoba G6:  
The province shall provide the documents mentioned in the original response. 

With respect to Yukon G11:  
The response found in the table provided by the objectors is prima facie satisfactory, as long as the documents it refers to have been provided. If not, the territory shall provide them.

Interrogatory 25

With respect to Saskatchewan G6:
The province shall provide what exists in the form it exists. A statement that the answer may be held by another government unit is not a proper answer. Each province answers for all of the province.

Interrogatory 26

With respect to Saskatchewan G6: 
Answered.

Interrogatory 27

With respect to Alberta G4:
The province shall answer the question.

With respect to Alberta G7:
Permission letters and e-mails authorizing posting are licences targeted in paragraph f). The province shall answer the question. 

With respect to Alberta G8:  
The province shall provide what it has that is responsive to the question. As stated in the Board's order of November 12, 2010, Access is only entitled to what exists, which need not be organized in any specific fashion, or come from any particular source. A government is a single entity. The answer can come from any source. However, an answer must be provided. 

With respect to Alberta G13:  
The province shall comply with its most recent undertaking. 

With respect to Manitoba G6, New Brunswick G3:  
The province shall provide what exists in the form it exists. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G3:  
Answered. 

With respect to Saskatchewan G6:  
The province's answer to Interrogatory 26 shows that there are relevant documents on the intranet. The province shall provide what exists in the form it exists. 

With respect to Yukon G4:  
The territory need only provide what exists in the form it exists. The response is prima facie satisfactory.


 

6 avril 2011

Following the Consortium and Access Copyright's request of March 31, 2011, the Board sets the following schedule of proceedings for the Crown immunity application.

Filing of Consortium's legal arguments by no later than Wednesday, June 15, 2011;
Filing of Access Copyright's response by no later than Tuesday, August 30, 2011;
Filing of Consortium's reply by no later than Wednesday, September 14, 2011;
Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, September 27, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.


 

22 mars 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board grants the parties' request to hear the issue of Crown immunity by way of a preliminary and separate hearing.

The closest date available to the Board for conducting such a hearing is Tuesday, July 19, 2011. Parties are asked to indicate if they are available on that date, and if so, to provide a proposed schedule for the filing of legal briefs.


 

27 janvier 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

The January 18, 2011 application for re-consideration of the Board's ruling of December 17, 2010 by the Consortium, the Government of Ontario and the Government of British Columbia ("the Objectors") is dismissed.  

The application requests that the Board change the wording of the answers to two questions in the pre-test relating to the number of copies a respondent has made in a particular period. Specifically, the answers to questions 3 and 4 in the pre-test, as specified in the ruling of December 17, were "zero," "number of times," and "don't know/no response." The application requests that the answers be "zero," "one or more times," and "don't know/no response."
There are two overriding reasons for dismissing the application. First, asking respondents to specify how many times they made a copy over the two most recent 30-day periods is not much more demanding than asking them whether they made one or more copies during the same period. Second, using the wording proposed by Access allows collapsing the data into the wording proposed by the Objectors; the converse is not true.

The Board's ruling of December 17 does not specify how data from Phase I and Phase II are to be used. As such, arguments about the avowed purposes of parties or the possibility of prejudicial response categories are not relevant. All parties are free to use the data from the survey as they wish and to present interpretations of the data. The Board will decide how much credence to give to such interpretations only after they are presented, not beforehand.


 

17 décembre 2010

Access Copyright and the Consortium's request to extend to the end of February 2011 the date for completion of a Statement of Agreed Fact on Crown Immunity is granted.


17 décembre 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Governments of Ontario and British Columbia and a Consortium of other provincial and territorial Governments (collectively, "the Objectors") and Access Copyright ("Access") have asked the Board to resolve a number of issues relating to the design of the copying survey to be conducted jointly by them in the above-referenced proceedings. The purpose of the survey is to allow the parties to collect data on which the Board may rely in determining how much protected, compensable copying of works requiring a licence from Access takes place in provincial and territorial governments. The following ruling relies on all submissions made by the parties on this matter, with particular emphasis on the submissions made on November 1 and November 15, 2010, answering questions posed by the Board.

(A) The firm retained to conduct the survey shall conduct a comprehensive pre-test. Half of the pre-test sample will be asked questions 1 through 12 (the brief Phase I); the other half will be asked questions 1 through 54 (the full Phase I). All participants in the pre-test shall be invited to participate in Phase II. A pre-test of Phase II shall be conducted with those who accept to participate. Except as specified further below, the questions shall correspond to the text dated October 28, 2010 and filed with the Board by Access, and the protocol shall correspond to Appendix A filed by the Objectors on November 1.

Questions dealing with uploading shall be included in the pre-test as written. The Objectors' concerns regarding uploading appear misplaced; they seem to misunderstand what Access is requesting by inserting the uploading questions. That being said, including the question in the pre-test should allow the Board to assess any problems that may result from asking participants to upload documents when completing the survey.

Anchor questions also shall be included in the pre-test as written. Their inclusion raises no issue of survey fatigue. Furthermore, it is a truism that uncollected data cannot be used, whereas collected data can be discarded. The pre-test will allow the Board to assess the utility of these questions as well.

(B) The data from the pre-test shall be analyzed, together with interviews of some of the respondents, to answer the following questions:

  1. Are there different rates of agreement to participate in Phase II depending on whether survey participants are exposed to a brief or a full Phase I?
  2. Are the quality and quantity of the data collected in Phase II affected by a brief or full Phase I?
  3. Is there a different quantity of reporting as the survey period unfolds (e.g. in the first seven days relative to the second seven days)?
  4. What are the rates of initiation and completion of Phase I?
  5. What is the rate of acceptance to participate in Phase II?
  6. What are the rates of initiation and completion of Phase II?
  7. Do any uploaded documents raise privacy or other concerns?
  8. Are there any reports of accommodating strategies to complete the required tasks [from the interviews]?
  9. Are the instructions for uploading well-understood?
  10. Does uploading discourage participation or compliance?

(C) Submissions on these ten questions shall be made according to the schedule below. The Board will then rule on the following questions, on which submissions shall be filed at the same time as the answers to the preceding ten questions.

  1. Should there be a brief Phase I or a full Phase I in the full survey?
  2. Should uploading be included in the full survey?
  3. Should the anchor questions be included in the full survey?
  4. Should any questions be reworded for the full survey?

(D) The schedule for the preliminary portion of the process shall be as follows.

Step

Dates

Board ruling on study issues

December 2010

MOUs, Access and Objectors

January 4 - January 21, 2011

Development of sampling frame

January 24 - February 4, 2011

Development of RFP

January 24 - February 11, 2011

Competition and selection of supplier

February 14 - March 14, 2011

Contract initiation and project set-up

March 15 - March 29, 2011

Electronic programming of questionnaire

March 29 - April 13

Pre-test communication

April 14 - April 21
(April 22 is Good Friday)

Implementation of pre-test

April 26 - May 31, 2011

Analysis of pre-test

June  1 - June 17, 2011

Discussion among the parties about final survey
design and other issues

June 17 - July 15, 2011

Submissions to the Board

July 18, 2011

Reply submissions

August 8, 2011

Ruling of the Board

August, 2011

(E) Field work shall take place from September 19, to December 16, 2011, unless the parties agree on different starting and ending dates.  Access shall supply the raw data to the Objectors on a continual basis.

(F) For the purposes of the pre-test and the survey, all sampling shall be done "with replacement": persons without a valid government email address or an email address that does not work at the time of the pre-test or survey shall be excluded from the sampling frame and a new respondent shall be drawn randomly from the remaining unsampled respondents in accordance with the stratification scheme, where the stratification scheme is the one on which Access and the Objectors agree.

People who cannot be contacted by email, either because they do not have one or the address they have does not work, can be treated in one of several ways. These include counting them as participants and (a) assigning them zero copies (b) assigning them an average number of copies or (c) remove them from the final calculations. Another is to exclude them from the sample altogether by substituting someone else.

Each method requires assumptions about the copying behaviour of those who are not or cannot be contacted. The first supposes that they never make copies, the other three that they copy no more, no less than other employees. The Board is more comfortable with the second assumption than with the first. Once that assumption is made, reducing the sample size also reduces its reliability. Accordingly, we prefer sampling with replacement.

We do not know how many potential respondents will be affected by this part of the ruling. Consequently, we do not know whether this is a real issue. In an attempt to remedy this, those who will determine the sample used to conduct the pre-test and the actual survey shall track, for each jurisdiction and in total, the number of persons of each category that had to be replaced pursuant to this part of the ruling.

This element of the ruling may be revisited in light of the results of the pre-test.

(G) For the purposes of the pre-test, the introduction shall read "it will take you 5 to 10 minutes to complete the survey" for recipients receiving the brief Phase I and "it will take you 15 to 20 minutes to complete the survey" for those receiving the full Phase I. Appropriate adjustments will be made once the final form of the full survey is decided.

(H) For the purposes of questions 3 and 4, the answers shall be "zero", "number of times", and "don't know/no response". Data on number of times a copying event has occurred can be collapsed into binary data indicating whether or not any copying event has occurred. The reverse is not true.

(I) For the purposes of questions 6 and 7, the focus of the question shall be vacation days, not sick days. At least 8 jurisdictions can produce aggregate data for vacation days; the Objectors did not report which jurisdictions can produce aggregate data for sick days. Access is indifferent as to whether questions 6 and 7 reference sick or vacation days.

(J) Access shall file its case on Friday, May 4, 2012. The Objectors shall file their case on Friday, August 24, 2012. Access shall file its reply case Friday, September 21, 2012. Hearings shall begin on Tuesday, October 2, 2012.

These timelines allow Access 20 weeks (as proposed) from the end of the filed work to file its case and the Objectors 16 weeks (instead of the requested 26) from the time Access files its case to file theirs. The Objectors' request is excessive. Since they will receive raw data at the same time as Access, they too will have more than seven months to conduct any parallel or additional analysis they wish, including the so-called double payment analysis. Fourteen weeks is more than enough for them to look at Access' final results, analysis and conclusions and react in any fashion they please.


 

12 novembre 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

On October 12, 2010, Access Copyright (Access) provided to the Consortium of governments (Consortium) and to the province of Ontario (Ontario) a list of alleged deficiencies in their responses to interrogatories seeking information on the issue of Crown immunity. The Consortium and Ontario responded on October 25. On November 3, the Consortium asked the Board to reconsider its order of May 18, which is at the centre of the controversy this order intends to address. Access responded to the application on November 8.

The alleged deficiencies must be assessed in the very specific (and unusual) context of what the Board stated in its order of May 18, 2010 in relation to Crown immunity:

[...] While the request is no doubt onerous, this has to be balanced against the fact that the immunity claim is central to the governments' argument. The courts' admonitions to gather a detailed factual background before dealing with such claims must be complied with.

Sampling is not an obvious option. We do not know whether we are dealing with standard contracts (collective affiliation, recording deals, etc.) or whether each contract is one-of-a-kind. Under those circumstances, the risk that self-sampling would provide insufficient information to determine whether the claim of immunity waiver is valid is simply too high. Therefore the request is not unreasonable.

Furthermore, most or all of the information requested would be available under access to information legislation irrespective of burden. The governments are using their status as governments to attempt to avoid tariff liability. The extent of their obligation of disclosure should be informed by their status as governments.

The alleged deficiencies in the responses of members of the Consortium are numerous. The provinces have not supplied everything they have; some may even be unresponsive. The provinces had enough time to seek, obtain and provide the relevant information. The fact that the information was not centrally available is not an excuse.

Yet, it would be unnecessarily time consuming and impractical to attempt to respond to each complaint individually. Instead, this order sets out a number of propositions intended to allow the parties to settle these issues among themselves once and for all.

Access suggests that the Consortium be prevented from advancing the Crown immunity defence if its members do not provide fuller answers. On occasion, the Board has ruled that the party who fails to answer interrogatories is not allowed to address certain issues at the hearing. In this instance, this solution may not be possible and certainly is not advisable. For one thing, the ability of one province to advance an issue should not be prejudiced by the alleged misconduct of another. For another, the legal issues raised by the claim of Crown immunity cannot be simply set aside.

Crown immunity issues cannot be addressed without a detailed factual background, especially where it is claimed that immunity has been waived. And yet, it seems no longer practical to insist that the governments comply fully with the interrogatories. This would require significant time and effort well beyond any practical purpose served by adding to the evidence. As Access stated, some finality is needed if the file is to move forward.

Some other means must be found to allow Access to obtain and provide the evidence it needs to make its case. One such means is to tailor the fact base to account for the failure of the Objectors to respond. Inferences, combined with a prohibition on the Objectors filing additional evidence responsive to interrogatories, can achieve this.

Therefore, a more practical solution is to allow Access to treat the information supplied in response to interrogatories as complete if it so wishes, presumably if the information tends to support its position. Access will be able to proceed on the basis of what it has instead of chasing additional evidence that, in all probability, is only of marginal utility. Furthermore, since the burden of proving a claim of Crown immunity should rest with the provinces, and since the purpose of the Crown immunity interrogatories is to allow Access to determine whether any immunity has been waived, it would not be unfair to decide now that unless a province provides new information requested in interrogatories, Access will be entitled to draw inferences that are favourable to it. The provinces will have until the date set below to cure deficiencies to supply any information asked for in interrogatories that may tend to support their immunity claim or to prove that immunity has not been waived. After that date, provinces will be not allowed, without leave from the Board, to supply any further evidence in support of their immunity claim that was asked for in the interrogatories.

The application of the principles stated earlier results in the following propositions.

1) If a province files no document that would be responsive to an interrogatory, it may be deemed that no such document exists. For example, if a province provides no document in which it asserts its immunity, it may be inferred that the province never asserts its immunity.

2) Unless information to the contrary is supplied, it may be deemed that a province's responses to interrogatories would establish that the province always complies with the Copyright Act and other intellectual property legislation when it uses the intellectual property of others. For example, a province shall be deemed to acquire software licences on normal terms unless it provides evidence to the contrary in response to the relevant interrogatories.

3) A province that does not provide evidence (as opposed to a mere statement) that it does not assert copyright may be deemed to assert copyright.

4) Where answers are inconsistent, answers that support the position of Access may be preferred over answers that do not, unless the province provides a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency.

5) A standard form agreement or template may be deemed to be consistently used unless a province provides evidence to the contrary. If evidence to the contrary is provided, the province shall specify the number of relevant agreements and the proportion that deviate from the form or template.

Access is free to develop further, similar propositions based on the main principle outlined above. The Board will rule on the validity of each proposition in due course.

Several times, Access stated that a document offered in response to an interrogatory was, in fact, not provided. What was offered but not provided should be provided. What is referred to in a response but not provided should also be provided. Where a clarification is requested, it should be provided.

Objectors shall file additional responses to interrogatories no later than Friday, December 3, 2010.

No later than on Friday, November 26, 2010, parties may apply for further clarification of this Order or for a further order dealing with issues which they consider this order does not resolve.

A few more issues warrant some clarification.

A) Access claims to be entitled to receive a single, government-wide answer to each interrogatory, adding that the whole point of interrogatories is "to ascertain the position of the government of the provinces or territories in question in response to each and every interrogatory." This is incorrect. The purpose of interrogatories is to ascertain facts, not positions. Furthermore, Access is only entitled to what exists, which need not be organized in any specific fashion, or come from any particular source. More importantly, since there is only one Crown in each province, each response provided by a "sub-unit" can presumptively be treated as a response from the Crown.

On the other hand, Access is justified in complaining about any lack of candour in communicating the nature and extent of the alleged burden imposed by the interrogatories and about the lack of indication of the extent to which responses were incomplete. A more proactive stance in this respect would have made things easier for Access.

B) Access asked several questions with respect to trade-marks, without specifying whether or not that should include official word marks. Official word marks are not trade-marks. It is now too late to widen the information request. Furthermore, Access can determine on its own which provinces "own" such marks, as they are all published on the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. And if a province has a mark, it is reasonable to infer, without further evidence, that the province intends to defend the mark. Nothing more is required for the purposes of these proceedings.

C) The direction given by counsel to the Consortium to stop compiling responses while the Board is deliberating on the deficiency motions was inappropriate. The Board's orders are to be complied with until and unless they are rescinded.

This Order disposes of the deficiency motions of Access. As a result, the Consortium's application for reconsideration of the Board's order of May 18, 2010 is moot.


 

13 octobre 2010

La Commission accepte la requête du Consortium.
[Objet :Demande de prorogation de délais.]


 

8 octobre 2010

This is acceptable to the Board.

Re: Scheduling request:

Mr. McDougall:

In response to the below, I write with the agreement of all of the parties, to propose that the submissions of all parties on the points set out in the below Notice be due on or before November 1, 2010 and that submissions in reply thereto (if deemed necessary by a party) be due on or before Nov. 15, 2010.

I trust that this responds to your request.


 

5 octobre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Before a pre-hearing can take place in this matter, the Board requires the parties to provide written answers and replies to a series of questions, as listed hereunder. The Board requests that an agreed schedule for such answers and replies be filed no later than Friday, October 8, 2010.

1) Parties are asked to supply in writing evidence and argument in support of or against every statement of fact made by them to date, including those listed in point 1 of the Board's notice of September 1, 2010, attached for your convenience [See September 1, 2010 entry for Notice of the Board].

2) If the last event remembered is more likely to be a larger copying activity than a small one, what sorts of biases does this introduce into Phase I responses?

3) Please confirm in writing the methodological issues on which the parties agree, and those on which they disagree. With respect to the latter, please provide written evidence and argument in support of your positions. Please pay special attention to the proposed confidence interval, the estimated variance of 400,000 copies per respondent and the way to deal with employees without an email address.

4) Parties should also provide a detailed timetable for all activities, including pre-tests, analysis of pre-tests, testing, analysis of data, and sign-offs by various government officials that has been agreed to by all parties.

5) Please outline any remaining privacy concerns you have left, given that Access Copyright has confirmed it is not asking for the uploading of anything other than published documents and stratification of the sample will be by province and territory only.

6) Provinces are asked to confirm whether vacation days are collected as an aggregate or whether the data can be readily generated.

7) Please indicate any progress on the question of interlibrary loans and lack of comprehension of the survey by respondents.

8) Could any pre-testing procedure be used to help validate the choice between an abbreviated Phase I and a full Phase I? If so, please comment on the following list of factors that may be used to determine the choice of an abbreviated Phase I or a full Phase I:

(i) the propensity to complete Phase II;
(ii) the amount of time taken to complete Phase I;
(iii) information about the quality of responses to Phase II collected from follow-up interviews, with a randomly selected subset of respondents for each survey design;
(iv) any other factor.

9) B.C. suggests that a pre-test could remove the need for a ruling in advance on the nature of Phase I. In light of this suggestion, parties are asked to provide their positions on whether the pre-test should or not be conducted before the pre-hearing. 


 

22 septembre 2010

This is further to Mr. Hofley's letter of September 1, 2010 on the above-mentioned matter.

I have been asked to inform you that if the parties are able to come to an Agreed Statement of Facts on Crown immunity issues by the end of the year, the Board will consider hearing and ruling on Crown immunity claims prior to dealing with the remaining issues. Whether this will be done and if so, according to which timetable, will be decided once the agreed statement has been provided. 


 

16 septembre 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Board rules as follows with respect to incomplete responses to interrogatories.

1) Interrogatory 2, Alberta, G1: The detailed explanation provided in the document dated May 26, 2010, answers the question.

2) Interrogatory 5, Yukon, G11: Yukon shall provide the relevant agreement with the corporate response.

3) Interrogatory 21, Nunavut: The question has been answered.  Access has sufficient information to put forward its arguments concerning Nunavut's "policies". Nunavut shall provide the Patrons' Guide, upon publication.

4) Interrogatory 38, Nova Scotia, G9 :The questions have been answered. The Department of Finance does not produce media monitoring packages.


 

15 septembre 2010

With respect to the first matter, the relevant reference for the statement in point 6) of the September 1, 2010 Notice of the Board staff (identifying issues to consider) is the following:

Porter, Stephen, Michael Whitcomb, and William Weitzer. (2004) "Multiple Surveys of Students and Survey Fatigue" New Directions for Institutional Research. No. 121, pp. 63-73. 
https://www.ohio.edu/studentaffairs/upload/Survey%20Fatigue.pdf (See especially the section on panel surveys on pp. 64-5)

The relevant reference for the statement in point 10)(c) of the same notice is:

Asiu, Bernhard W., Fultz, Miriam L., and Antons, Christopher M., "Undergraduate Perception of Survey Participation: Improving Response Rates and Validity", AIR 1998 Annual Forum Paper.
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED422805.pdf (See especially page 8)

With respect to the second matter, please provide the detailed calculations used in the estimation of the confidence interval. In particular, please explain the reasons why a survey with a sample of 13,000 respondents leads to what appears to be a large confidence interval (+/- 20%).


 

7 septembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board requires the Consortium to provide the following documents, by end of business day, Thursday September 9, 2010:

1) the May 20, 2010 description provided by legal counsel to the Consortium as response from Alberta, G1 to Interrogatory 2d);

2) the corporate response mentioned in the Consortium's reply to the deficiency claim respecting the response from Yukon, G11 to Interrogatory 5;

3) Nunavut's response to Interrogatory 5, referred to in the deficiency claim and the Consortium's reply respecting the response from Nunavut to Interrogatory 21.


 

3 septembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board staff has set the following agenda for the upcoming meeting of September 7, 2010, 1:00pm (EDT):

1.    Introductions and context of this meeting
2.    Questions 8a, 10f  - month versus 30 days
3.    Question 11 - uploading files
4.    Question 12 - Access to Information Requests
5.    Question 2 - identifying methodology elements that have yet to be determined
6.    Question 9 - anchor questions
7.    Question 5c - sample selection bias and the Heckman correction
8.    Questions 10c, 10d, 10e - number and type of questions in Phase I
9.    Questions 13 through 25 - issues of question wording.
10.   Question 3 - questions included at the request of the objectors
11.   Other issues, whether or not identified in the September 1 informal list of comments and questions, that may be helpfully addressed in this informal meeting.
12.   Dates of availability for the pre-hearing.
13.   Adjournment.

Please note that the question numbers in the agenda refer to the informal list of comments and questions attached to the Board's email of September 1, 2010.

Parties who wish to address issues under item # 11 are asked to notify the Board accordingly and identify such issues, by no later than Tuesday September 7, 2010 at 10:00am.

Parties wishing to attend the meeting via teleconference should, a     few minutes prior to the starting time of the meeting, call the dial-in number 1-877-XXX-XXXX (from North America) or 1-613-XXX-XXXX (from overseas) and enter the Conference ID number, which is XXXXXXX, followed by the pound (#) key.

Please note that if at any time you require operator assistance, you may press the * (star) key and the number 0 key i.e. *0.


 

2 septembre 2010

Further to the Board's notice of September 1, the meeting with the Board staff will be on Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. The date for the pre-hearing will be discussed at that time.

Please confirm whether you and your experts will participate by teleconference or be in attendance in the Board's meeting room (located on the 6th floor at 56 Sparks Street). For those participating by teleconference, the relevant information will be provided in due course.

We also ask Mr. Green to let us know who will be the alternate to Mr. Don McRae.

Thank you.


 

1er septembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

RE: Survey - Access Copyright Provincial and Territorial Government Tariffs (2005-2009 and 2010-2014)

Having read the parties' comments and replies, the Board concludes that two meetings should be held with the parties and their experts.

The first will be of an informal and technical nature. In attendance should be the parties' counsel and experts as well as the Board's General Counsel, Mario Bouchard and one of the Board's Economic Analyst, Raphael Solomon. The starting point for discussions will be the informal list of comments and questions prepared by the Board staff which is attached to this email. The object of the meeting will be to allow the Board staff to better understand some of the issues raised by the parties and to seek the parties' input on some of the questions and comments raised in the informal list. This will allow the Board staff to better brief the Board in preparation for the second meeting.

At the second meeting, a pre-hearing, the Chairman will be in attendance. The object of the meeting will be to allow parties to provide evidence and arguments on disputed issues relating to the content and conduct of the survey and on the timetable leading to the hearings, so as to allow the Board to make a final ruling on these issues.

The Board staff is available to meet with the parties any time on September 3 and 7 and on the morning of September 8. The Board's meeting room is equipped with teleconferencing facilities for those who cannot attend in person. Parties are asked to advise of their availability forthwith.

With respect to the pre-hearing, parties are asked to advise the Board, as soon as possible, of their availability on the weeks of September 27 and October 4.
Attachment: Comments and Questions.pdf


 

31 août 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Re: Alleged Deficiencies of Consortium's Responses to Access Interrogatories 

Further to the Consortium's letter of August 30, please explain the references to G1 (Alberta), G11 (Yukon), GN (Nunavut), CLEY (Nunavut) and G9 (Nova Scotia).  The Board would also appreciate a copy of any document referred to in the Consortium's letter. 


 

5 août 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Following up on Mr. O'Neill's letter of August 3, 2010, this order sets the timelines to deal with the remaining issues concerning the survey to be conducted in this matter and the schedule for this proceeding.

Parties shall file written submissions on these issues no later than by 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Monday, August 9, 2010.

Parties shall file their reply submissions no later than by 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Wednesday, August 18, 2010, and not on August 21 as requested. This will allow the Board to deal with potentially conflicting priorities.

The Board will advise the parties shortly thereafter whether it will decide the matter based on these filings or whether it wishes to hear further from the parties or their experts.

Ontario is reminded that the object of the process set out in this order is to finalize the survey questionnaire, its methodology and mode of implementation in all respects and to all possible extent.


 

4 août 2010

Unless the parties in general, and Ontario in particular, file additional comments no later than by 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, August 5, 2010, the Board will take for granted that all parties agree that the only issues in dispute remaining with respect to the survey are those outlined in Mr. O'Neill's letter of August 3, 2010 and that the procedure outlined in that same letter to resolve these disputes, as well as disputes concerning scheduling issues, is acceptable.


 

6 juillet 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

This Order deals with the matters raised by counsel to Access in a letter dated June 17, 2010 and subsequent correspondence.

With respect to paragraph 1 of Access' letter, authorization of the copyright holder is not required. There is no prima facie reason to treat the Canwest Interactive documents differently. The Board knows of no principle of law that allows a person, once ordered to produce a document, to postpone such production until notice may have been given to a person to whom a duty of confidentiality (explicit or not) may be owed. Furthermore, any such obligation, if it exists, would probably lie with the person being ordered to produce the document, not with the person who is to receive the document pursuant to the Order. The earlier Order to produce the documents to Access is confirmed.

With respect to paragraph 2 of Access' letter, the Board notes the concerns of Access which, if real, are serious. They will be addressed in due course.


 

21 juin 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Objectors are asked to respond by no later than Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at noon.

The request:
Please find attached a letter (and attachments referenced therein) - [letter not attached as it contains confidential information] requesting the Board's urgent attention to certain issues related to the responses of the Provinces/Territories to Access Copyright's Interrogatories. I would be pleased to discuss these matters, should you believe that of assistance.


 

4 juin 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Order dealing with information requested during the interrogatory exchange process for which confidential treatment may be claimed. 

Attachment: Confidentiality Agreement.pdf


 

18 mai 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

Further to the objections on interrogatories, the Board rules as follows:

OBJECTIONS OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACCESS COPYRIGHT INTERROGATORIES

Definition of "You" or "Your" (Consortium): there is no need to rule on the matter, subject to what follows about the definition of "FTE".

Definition of "You" or "Your" (BC): BC shall answer using the definition proposed in Access' reply.

Definition of "Copy" (BC): the objection is dismissed. The interpretation Access proposes is not clearly incorrect. BC shall answer using the definition of "projection" as modified by Access.

Definition of "FTE" (Consortium): the parties shall attempt to agree on a definition of FTE. The Board's preliminary view is that FTE should include full-time, part-time, term and casual employees as well as agency personnel.

Definition of "FTE" (BC): settled.

Definition of "Sub-Unit" (all): "Sub-Unit" is redefined as proposed by Access in its reply to the objections.

Overlap between the notions of "intranet" and "repository or library of digital Copies" (all): The objectors shall provide the relevant information as part of one or the other set of questions.

Questions 2, 3 (BC): the objection is dismissed. 2004 data is relevant for the reasons set out in Access' reply.

Questions 5 (all), 36 (BC): copies of works that are not in the repertoire of Access are not relevant. That being said, if a work is in the repertoire, the burden of establishing that the Access licence is not needed should be on the user. At this stage, since Access does not carry the ultimate evidentiary burden on this issue, it only needs to get an idea of the extent to which governments actually source-licence works in its repertoire. A sample of several hundred licences, to be agreed upon by the parties, will suffice. The objectors shall answer Q.5(b) as rephrased.

Questions 6 to 20 (BC): the Board's assumption is that BC does not and will not claim Crown immunity or participate in the debate on this issue. Based on that assumption, BC need not answer questions 6 to 20.

Questions 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 (Consortium: Crown immunity): On the whole, the objection is dismissed. While the request is no doubt onerous, this has to be balanced against the fact that the immunity claim is central to the governments' argument. The courts' admonitions to gather a detailed factual background before dealing with such claims must be complied with.

Sampling is not an obvious option. We do not know whether we are dealing with standard contracts (collective affiliation, recording deals, etc.) or whether each contract is one-of-a-kind. Under those circumstances, the risk that self-sampling would provide insufficient information to determine whether the claim of immunity waiver is valid is simply too high. Therefore the request is not unreasonable.

Furthermore, most or all of the information requested would be available under access to information legislation irrespective of burden. The governments are using their status as governments to attempt to avoid tariff liability. The extent of their obligation of disclosure should be informed by their status as governments.

Since the attempt to draw parallels with other areas of intellectual property is not plainly wrong, the information needed to sustain it shall be provided, with one proviso. Since the Patents Act already provides that it binds the provincial Crowns, the argument cannot be made in respect of patents and patents-related information is irrelevant.

That being said, the parties are asked to discuss ways in which the disclosure burden on governments could be lightened. The parties should consider at least two scenarios: governments stipulating to certain facts/agreed statement of certain facts; developing a sampling methodology that provides Access with what it needs.

Questions 8, 12, 19 (Consortium): the objection is dismissed. Making a judgment on the issue would be premature. The Consortium shall answer Q.12 as rephrased.

Question 23 (BC): settled.

Questions 26, 27, 31 (BC): the objection is dismissed. Questions 27 and 31 shall be answered as re-drafted in Access' reply.

Question 31, 33 (Consortium: burden): the question is not whether there will be a survey if Access wants it, but how and when. The matter shall be held in abeyance until the survey issue has been disposed of. In any event, governments will not be asked, as part of the interrogatories process, to generate lists that do not exist.

Questions 33, 34 (BC: conducting survey): the objection is dismissed. BC shall respond as per Access' reply.

Question 44 (all): the objection is dismissed for the reasons given in Access' reply. The objectors shall supply a sample, to be agreed upon by the parties, of non-privileged communications. 


OBJECTIONS OF ACCESS COPYRIGHT TO BC INTERROGATORIES

Questions 3, 4, 7, 8, 23, 24, 27, 28: the objection is dismissed. Access only need provide what it has in the form that it exists. The response shall provide the information at a sufficient number of time points to allow the objectors to trend the evolution in the repertoire.  With respect to the list of affiliate authors and publishers, if the records do not exist, Access shall provide the lists of those who received a cheque in each distribution made during the relevant period, without the amounts.

Questions 16, 17, 36, 37: Access shall provide anything that is responsive to the questions and is not covered by litigation privilege.

Questions 18, 38: the objection is dismissed. Access shall respond for the last three years. If the number of requests is more than 50 a year, Access shall provide a representative sample of 50 instances per year.

Questions 42, 43, 44: there is no need to rule on this issue at this time. 

18 mai, 2010

The Board needs to obtain more information on the nature of the disagreement that the parties have with respect to the methodology to be employed in the survey. The parties should submit the information as soon as possible.


 

2 mars 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD 

The Directive on Procedure for the file mentioned above is attached. I draw your attention to the fact that both the electronic version of evidence (in email attachments or on CD-ROM, DVD or USB key) and the hard copies must be filed with the Board at the same time, on the date set for that purpose. Other participants must also receive their hard copy and electronic version on the same day the documents are filed with the Board. Please ensure that the electronic version allows the Board to import the text, in whole or in part, into a word processing software.

Also attached is a notice of the Board sent to the parties in other current files, in which it expresses its dissatisfaction with the way the parties currently deal with the confidential treatment and the relevance of the documents. The notice also states principles the Board expects parties to follow with respect to the confidential treatment and the relevance of the information, as well as the Board's intention to return to the parties any document that does not comply with these principles. Parties in this file are also expected to abide to the same principles.

The Board adopts the following schedule of proceedings which has been agreed upon by all interested parties:

Exchange of interrogatories: no later than Monday, March 22, 2010

Exchange of objections to interrogatories: no later than Monday, April 12, 2010

Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, April 26, 2010

[Board ruling]

Exchange of responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, June 7, 2010

Motions with respect to incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, June 28, 2010

Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, July 12, 2010

[Board ruling]

Exchange of complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, August 23, 2010

Filing of Access Copyright case: no later than Monday, April 11, 2011

Filing of Objectors' cases: no later than Monday, June 20, 2011

Filing of Access Copyright reply case: no later than Monday, July 4, 2011

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.

Attachment: DIRECTIVE ON PROCEDURE AC.pdf; SODRAC v SRC CBC et Astral SODRAC Tarif 5 etc.pdf


 

28 janvier 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Board has heard and considered the parties' submissions dealing with the issue of splitting the above-referenced matter to address the question of Crown immunity separately. Given the complexity of the evidence required to adequately deal with the question, the Board concludes that no purpose would be served by examining the question on its own. On the contrary, splitting the matter would only serve to complicate and delay the efficient disposition of all the issues raised in these proceedings.

The application to hear the question of Crown immunity separately is denied. As a result, no purpose would be served to now hear the question raised by British Columbia, that is whether Access is prevented from filing a tariff by reason of having entered into agreements with some provinces.

The matter will therefore proceed according to the schedule on which the parties have already agreed. The parties are still asked to file their proposed wording of the question or questions they would wish the Board to eventually address with respect to Crown immunity.


 

26 janvier 2010

The Chairman will hear the parties' submissions on the issues identified below on Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 11 a.m. (Eastern Time). Ms. Noel and Messrs. Hofley and O'Neill will attend at the Board's offices (6th Floor). Ms. Rush and Messrs. Petersen and Green will participate by teleconference. Instructions on how to join the teleconference will follow.

AGENDA

1. Identification of questions the objectors intend to raise and that, if the objectors are correct, could prevent the Board from certifying a tariff altogether. (Crown immunity, others)

2. Can the questions identified in 1. be addressed separately from the tariff determination or are they inextricably bound up with the overall issue?

  1. Is it necessary to create a factual backdrop or context in order to decide the questions?
  2. If the answer to a. is yes, how can the factual backdrop or context be best created?
    • An agreed statement of facts
    • A hearing with the usual procedural rules to apply including interrogatories, etc. (with or without adaptations)
    • Other

3. Matters to be addressed if the Board decides to deal separately with the questions identified in 1.

    • Wording of question(s)
    • Scheduling of questions(s)
    • Impact on scheduling of other issues
      • Everything else is postponed
      • The survey methodology is set but everything else is postponed
      • The survey proceeds but the tariff examination hearings are postponed
      • Other scenarios

4. Other issues


 

13 novembre 2009

Ruling of the Board

The application to extend the date set in the Board's order of September 8, 2009 is granted. The parties shall report to the Board and propose a schedule of proceedings no later than Friday, January 15, 2010.

The Board is concerned by the time it has taken for the objectors to retain and instruct counsel. The indication that the Province of Ontario might require several more weeks to conclude this process is not reassuring in the least. Lengthy and complex internal approval processes may be a reality that provincial administrations must contend with, but the Board will not allow these issues to control the agenda.

Failure to comply with this order might lead the Board itself to set a schedule shortly thereafter.


 

8 septembre 2009

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors have received the reply of Access Copyright to the objections filed with respect to the Provincial/Territorial Tariff 2010-2014. The reply of Access Copyright indicates a willingness on its part to enter into discussions with the provinces and territories on virtually all issues for which objections have been filed. If undertaken by all parties in good faith, such discussions would, at a minimum, help focus and reduce the issues to be examined in any subsequent hearing.

The Board however intends to proceed with the examination of the proposed tariffs for 2005-2009 and 2010-2014 diligently. While it wishes to encourage and facilitate discussions between parties, the Board must ensure that the proceedings leading to a hearing are not unreasonably delayed. Consequently, parties are encouraged to engage in substantive and scheduling discussions with a view to reporting to the Board, in writing, no later than Friday, November 13, 2009



Access Copyright - Tarif pour les établissements d'enseignement postsecondaires (2011-2013) & (2014-2017)


 

25 octobre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-087]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-087] dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-10-25-CB-CDA 2016-087


 

4 octobre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-083]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board is of the preliminary view that Exhibit AC-50-D does not contain information of such nature that it requires confidential treatment. Access shall provide the reasons why it is of the view that this exhibit should be treated as confidential information by no later than Thursday, October 6, 2016.


 

9 juin 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-050]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Please see attached Notice of the Board [CB-CDA 2016-050] in the above-referenced matter.

Also, Access shall inform the Board no later than Tuesday, June 14, 2016 as to when it expects to be able to respond to the questions.

Attachment: RUL-2016-06-09 CB-CDA 050.pdf; Board-1 Convention UQAM et COPIBEC.pdf; Board-2 Convention universites 2013-2014.pdf; Board-3 Convention universites 2007-2012.pdf


 

9 juin 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-049]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les copies de la Convention concernant la reproduction d’œuvres littéraires entre l’Université du Québec à Montréal et Copibec (2014-2017) et de la Convention concernant la reproduction d’œuvres littéraires dans les établissements d’enseignement d’ordre universitaire (2013-2014) préalablement déposées à la Commission par Copibec en vertu de l’article 70.5 de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur contenaient une liste d’exclusions.

La Convention concernant la reproduction d’œuvres littéraires dans les établissements d’enseignement d’ordre universitaire (2007-2012) déposée à la Commission par Copibec le 7 juin 2016, en réponse à l’avis de la Commission du 2 juin 2016, ne contient pas de liste d’exclusions. La Commission demande à Copibec de lui envoyer une copie de la liste d’exclusions qui accompagnait cette licence au plus tard d’ici la fin de la journée.


 

2 juin 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-044]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-044] dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2016-06-02-CB-CDA 2016-044 - Access Copyright - Post-Secondary (2011-2017) FR.pdf


 

March 2, 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-023]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Additional letters of comments have been received in the above-referenced matter:

- University of Manitoba (February 18, 2016); and,
- Athabasca University (February 29, 2016).

Access Copyright and Mr. Maguire may respond to all comments no later than Friday, March 4, 2016.

P.j. :

University of Manitoba - Feb. 18, 2016 - Letter to the Copyright Board Re Access.pdf
Athabasca University - Feb. 29, 2016 - Letter to the Copyright Board Re Access.pdf


 

19 février 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-017]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board grants the extension request below. Access Copyright and Mr. Maguire may respond to all comments no later than Friday, March 4, 2016.

From: Erin Finlay
Sent: February-18-16 5:04 PM
To: Campanella, Nadia: CB-CDA; Art Renaud; Claire Gillis; Jess Zagar; S. Maguire
Cc: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA; M. Armstrong; M. Jaworski; C. Colebatch; T. Waddell
Subject: RE: Access Copyright - Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Tariff (2011-2013 and 2014-2017) - Notice [CB-CDA 2016-016]

Dear Mr. McDougall,

Due to scheduling conflicts and the fact that I will be out of the country next week, Access Copyright respectfully requests an extension of time to Friday, March 4, 2016 to respond to the comments received by the Board. Of course, we have no objection to the same extension of time for Mr. Maguire to respond.

Thank you for your consideration,
Erin

Erin Finlay
Director, Legal Services & Government Relations, General Counsel
Access Copyright


 

18 février 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-016]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Additional letters of comments have been received in the above-referenced matter:

- The University of British Columbia, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, The Governors of the University of Alberta, The University of Winnipeg, The University of Calgary, University of the Fraser Valley, The University of Lethbridge and Thompson Rivers University (“Collectively”), (February 15, 2016);
- Brock University (February 17, 2016); and,
- Mount Royal University (dated March 25, 2015, however, received by the Board on February 18, 2016).

The February 12, 2016 Notice [CB-CDA 2016-013] reproduced below, is rescinded.

Access Copyright and Mr. Maguire may now respond to all comments (including York’s University) no later than Friday, February 26, 2016.

Attachments :

Brock University - Feb. 17, 2016 - Letter to the Copyright Board Re Access.pdf
Collectives - Feb. 15, 2016 - Letter to the Copyright Board Re Access.pdf
Mont Royal University - Feb. 18, 2016 - Letter to the Copyright Board Re Access.pdf


 

2 février 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-013]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The comments received by York University on February 9, 2016 (attached) are added to the public record in the above-noted matter.

Parties may respond to York University’s comments by no later than Friday, February 19, 2016.

Attachment: Letter to Copyright Board re Access Copyright PSI Tariff Feb 9 2016 with....pdf


 

14 janvier 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-006]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access shall respond to the following questions at its earliest convenience.

General Questions:

1. Access filed three analytic reports (AC-4, AC-14, and AC-25), relating to three datasets (ACCC, U of T, and coursepacks, respectively). Was any fair-dealing analysis conducted on the documents the copying of which was reported in these three datasets? Were any adjustments made for fair dealing in these three analytical reports?

2. According to AC-12, Table 3, universities copy substantially more than colleges in coursepacks up until 2010. Does Mr. Heys agree that this is a feature of the data that likely continued into 2011-2013 and 2014-2017?

3. In AC-20, Mr. Heys gives several reasons why the previous payment of about $19 should be adjusted upwards to $26: digital copying, risk-shifting, and inflation. Can he provide an assessment of the relative importance of these three factors?

4. In AC-25, Table 3.7, Mr. Gauthier reports copying by model type for ACCC institutions. What is the definition of “model licensee”? What is the definition of “unlicensed institution”? In particular, what is the definition of unlicensed institution for the years 2005-2010? Is it an institution that became unlicensed after 2010? Does he use the same definition for Table 3.8? How does Access obtain data for unlicensed institutions? Is the definition of unlicensed institution the same in AC-30 as it is in AC-25?

5. In AC-30, at paragraph 155, Mr. Dobner linked increasing revenues with decreasing returns to scale? How is this link causal?

6. In AC-31, Table 1, Mr. Heys shows a decrease in the number of institutions paying $26 and a corresponding increase in the number of institutions paying lower prices ($12 - $18). Is this indicative of a decrease in demand for Access licences? If so, how does he justify continuing to claim that $26 is the FMV price for the 2014-2017 tariff?

Questions Re: Compensability of Digital Copying:

7. According to AC-22 and AC-23, it appears that Access only asked its publisher affiliates, not its creator affiliates, to waive the Digital Deletion Clause retroactive to January 1, 2010.

a) Is this a correct assumption?

b) If so, please explain why creators have not been asked to waive the Digital Deletion Clause.

c) Please describe the impact of this on Access’ ability to license digital rights on behalf of creators.

d) Why did Access only ask publishers to waive the Digital Deletion Clause whereas it asked both publishers and creators to sign the 2015 Affiliation Agreement?

8. According to AC-33, paragraph 2, 55 per cent of creators have not signed the 2015 Affiliation Agreement. Please describe the impact of this on Access’ ability to license digital rights on behalf of creators.

9. In AC-23, paragraph 7, Access wrote as follows: “In AC-2, the witnesses indicate that creators can register with Access Copyright. As of the Spring of 2015, Access Copyright is no longer offering creators the option of registering. For any affiliate or creator registrant that has not migrated to the new affiliation agreement, his or her agreement or registration continues to apply.” [Our underlining]

Please explain what this means. In doing so, explain the difference between an affiliated creator and a creator registrant, as well as the reasons underlying this change.

10. In AC-33A, Access provides, for each of its 598 publisher affiliates, an indication of whether they have retroactively waived the Digital Deletion Clause and whether they have signed the 2015 Affiliation Agreement.

a) Access shall provide the Board with the numbers and percentages of publishers:

- that have signed both the waiver and the 2015 Affiliation Agreement;

- that did not sign the waiver but signed the 2015 Affiliation Agreement;

- that signed the waiver but not the 2015 Affiliation Agreement; and,

- that did not sign the waiver nor the 2015 Affiliation Agreement.

b) For each of those four categories, please describe the impact on Access’ ability to license digital rights.

11. Access shall provide the Board with submissions on the opposability of retroactively waiving the Digital Deletion Clause on third parties, namely the users targeted by the tariff. In other words, explain the effect on the users targeted by the tariff of retroactively waiving the Digital Deletion Clause that was included in the former affiliation agreement entered into between Access and its rights holders.

Today’s email received from Arthur Renaud (attached) along with the outline of Mr. Heys remarks as they relate to the implications of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc. Supreme Court of Canada decision have been made part of the record as exhibit AC-34.


 

14 janvier 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-005]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

If he so wishes, Mr. Maguire may respond to Access’ submission below (now exhibit AC-34), before the start of the hearing.

Attachment: Access Copyright Submissions - 2016-01-14 Response to [CB-CDA 2016-03].pdf


 

14 janvier 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-004]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Today’s email received from Arthur Renaud (attached) along with the outline of Mr. Heys remarks as they relate to the implications of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc. Supreme Court of Canada decision have been made part of the record as exhibit AC-34.

Attachment: Access Copyright Submissions - 2016-01-14 Response to [CB-CDA 2016-03].pdf


 

12 janvier 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-003]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board agrees with Access’ suggestion to have Mr. Heys address the implications of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc. Supreme Court of Canada decision. Access is asked to supply an outline of Mr. Heys’ remarks in that respect, no later than Thursday, January 14, 2016.

The Board may have further questions relating to these principles and will decide whether additional written evidence is required in due course.


 

5 janvier 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-001]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

En préparation de l'audience débutant le lundi 18 janvier 2016 dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique, veuillez informer le greffe, au plus tard le mardi 12 janvier 2016, le cas échant où vous anticipez un besoin pour les items suivants :

- Interprètes/traduction simultanée;
- Équipement (tableau, accès à l’internet, etc ...);
- Besoins spéciaux/autres questions.

De plus, si vous comptez déposer des informations additionnelles lors de l'audience, veuillez en fournir 8 copies pour la Commission (1 copie caviardée et 7 copies confidentielles) ainsi que suffisamment de copies pour les autres parties. Une copie électronique des pièces supplémentaires sera également nécessaire (clé USB).


 

16 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-086]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Sean Maguire has confirmed through a telephone conversation with the Secretary general that he does not object to Access’ request below. Access’ request is granted.

From: Erin Finlay
Sent: December-16-15 3:27 PM
To: Sean Maguire; McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Claire Gillis; Art Renaud; Campanella, Nadia: CB-CDA; Levac, Roch: CB-CDA
Subject: RE: Access Copyright Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Tariff, 2011-2013 & 2014-2017

Dear Mr. McDougall,

Access Copyright seeks leave from the Board to file updated and supplementary evidence in the above noted matter.

The updated and supplementary evidence consists of two short updates to the witness statement of Jennifer Lamantia and Roanie Levy, regarding: 1) the lists of publisher and creator affiliates that have waived the Digital Deletion Clause and signed the 2015 Affiliation Agreement to date (referenced at paragraph 5 of AC-23); and 2) the number and lists of universities and colleges that have signed the Premium and Choice licences to date (referenced at paragraphs 32 through 34 of AC-23). We believe this evidence is relevant and material to this matter and that it would be useful for the Board to have the updated information in writing and prior to the hearing.

As the evidence would not technically constitute a reply to Mr. Maguire's case, we are seeking leave to file such evidence with the Board. For ease of filing, we propose to include the information in Access Copyright's Reply Case, to be filed with the Board on Friday, December 18, as part of a short witness statement with updated exhibits.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Best regards,

Erin Finlay


 

15 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-084]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2015 SCC 57 issued on November 26, 2015, enunciated that the following principles needed to be taken into account by the Board when fixing licence fees:

  • Technological neutrality; and,
  • Balance between user and right-holder rights, with relevant factors to include the risks taken by the user, the extent of the investment made by the user in the new technology, and the nature of the copyright protected work’s use in the new technology.

The Board is of the preliminary opinion that these principles set by the SCC do not impact on the above-noted matter, and do not justify additional submissions by the parties on this issue.

Parties are asked to provide comments on the Board’s preliminary opinion no later than Friday, January 8, 2016. Parties will be allowed to reply to each other no later than Friday, January 15, 2016.


 

15 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-080]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Please note that the hearing in the above-noted matter will now commence on Monday, January 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., at the Copyright Board hearing room.


 

28 octobre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-064]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board modifies, as requested below by the parties, the remainder of the schedule of proceedings for the above-noted file as follows:

Filing of Access Copyright’s Supplementary Case: no later than Friday, November 6, 2015;

Filing of the Objector’s Supplementary Case: no later than Friday, December 4, 2015;

Filing of Access Copyright’s Reply Case: no later than Friday, December 18, 2015;

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., in the Copyright Board’s Hearing room.


 

21 octobre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-060] & [CB-CDA 2015-061]

As requested and agreed by the parties, attached are the Confidentiality Order and the amended Directive on Procedure in the above-noted matter.

P. J. :

1) ORD-2015-10-21 – CB-CDA 060 – Confidentiality Order – Access Copyright Post-Secondary (2011-2013 & 2014-2017)
2) DIR-2015-10-21 – CB-CDA 061 – Directive on Procedure – Access Copyright Post-Secondary (2011-2013 & 2014-2017)


 

15 juillet 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-046]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board grants the proposal below and sets the remainder of the schedule of proceedings for the above-noted proceedings as follows:

- Access Copyright is to file its supplementary case no later than Friday, October 30, 2015; - Mr. Maguire is to file his supplementary case no later than Friday, November 27, 2015; - Access Copyright is to file its reply case no later than Friday, December 18, 2015; - Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the Copyright Board’s Hearing room.

From: Erin Finlay
Sent: July-08-15 10:57 AM
To: G. McDougall, A. Renaud; C. Gillis; S. Maguire
Subject: RE: Access Copyright - Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariffs, 2011-2013 and 2014-2017 - Ruling of the Board - July 03, 2015 [CB-CDA 2015-045]

Dear Mr. McDougall,

In accordance with the Board’s ruling below, Access Copyright proposes the following schedule:

- Access Copyright to file supplementary case: Friday, October 30, 2015
- Mr. Maguire to file supplementary case: Friday, November 27, 2015
- Access Copyright to file reply case: Friday, December 18, 2015.

For clarification, since Access Copyright has not yet filed a case for the 2014-2017 tariff, we anticipate that its supplementary case will include its case for the 2014-2017 period (including the Board’s June 3, 2015 questions).

We are still confirming the availability of our witnesses for a hearing to start on January 19, 2016, but expect to be in a position to confirm their availability with the Board shortly. Subject to that confirmation, we propose that the hearing can be held from Tuesday, January 19, 2016 to Friday January 22, 2016, with closing arguments on Monday, January 25, 2016.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact either Arthur Renaud or me at your convenience.

Best regards,

Erin Finlay


 

3 juillet 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-045]

RULING OF THE BOARD

In its Ruling of December 4, 2013, the Board denied Access’ application to consolidate the examination of the above-cited tariffs for essentially two reasons. First, the Board did not want to disrupt the then current proceedings in respect of the period 2011-2013, slated for a hearing that was to begin two months later, by adding new issues for examination. Second, it did not want to be in a position to have to certify a tariff for the period 2014-2017 on “what may happen” in a then potentially unstable market.

The first reason is now moot, and the second, much less relevant. Parties are now in a better position to provide useful information on this new, 2014-2017 period. In addition, both Access and Mr. Maguire agree that the consolidation would reduce costs for the parties. The Board thus confirms the consolidation of the examination of the above-cited tariffs.

Mr. Maguire’s application for intervenor status is granted. Access Copyright did not object to Mr. Maguire’s request.

No later than Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Access Copyright shall propose a process and a schedule for a hearing to start on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. This process should minimally provide for the filing of a supplementary statement of case by Access, the filing of a supplementary statement of case by Mr. Maguire and a reply case by Access. Mr. Maguire is allowed to respond to Access’ proposed process and schedule no later than Friday, July 10, 2015.

Finally, Access shall provide answers to the Board’s questions of June 3, 2015 (attached, for convenience) as part of its supplementary statement of case.

Attachment: ORD-2015-06-03-CB-CDA 2015-032.pdf


 

30 juin 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-042]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board is of the preliminary view that, in accordance with the attached Access’ request, Access Copyright Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariffs for the years 2011-2013 and for the years 2014-2017 should be consolidated. The reasons invoked by the Board in its ruling of December 4, 2013 to deny the application for consolidation have become moot with the passage of time. The Board also agrees on a preliminary basis with Access that a hearing on the consolidated matter could be scheduled for early 2016.

Mr. Maguire can provide comments on the Board’s preliminary view no later than Friday, July 3, 2015. Access may reply to the comments no later than Monday, July 6, 2015.

Attachment: 2015­06-16 Application to Copyright Board requesting a hearing (final).pdf


 

26 juin 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-041]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

In their joint objection of July 17, 2013 to Access Copyright Post-Secondary Educational Institutional Tariff for the years 2014-2016, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) requested a limited intervenor status, which would include the right to participate in the hearing but not be subjected to the interrogatory process. This request is denied. The Board considers that such an unequal status of participants can lead to unfairness.

To achieve a similar status as the one requested, CAUT and CFS can avail themselves of section A.2 of the Model Directive on Procedure which states:
2. Comments
Anyone may comment in writing on any aspect of the proceedings. As a general rule, comments received later than the date by which participants must present or file oral or written arguments will not be considered. In due course, the Board will forward these comments to participants.


 

18 juin 2015flèche par en haut

[CDA-2015-037]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Following Access Copyright's attached request, the Board suspends sine die the deadline to respond to the June 3, 2015 Order. Further instructions will be issued shortly.

Attachment: 2015­-06-­16 Application to Copyright Board requesting a hearing (final).pdf


 

3 juin 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-032]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Please find attached the Board’s Order [CB-CDA 2015-032] in the above-noted matter.

Attachment: [CB-CDA 2015-032]


 

10 avril 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access' request below is granted. Access Copyright is to provide its reply to the ACCC's submissions no later than Tuesday, April 22, 2014. Please note that the Board has extended the delay of one day since April 21, 2014 is a federal statutory holiday.

In addition, please find attached a copy of SFU's representations filed with the Board on April 3, 2014. Access may request additional time to adequately reply to SFU's submissions if required.

De : BROOKS, NANCY
Envoyé : Wednesday, April 09, 2014 05:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
À : McDougall, Gilles
Cc : AONeill; wanda.noel; Glen.Bloom; CSeto; S. Maguire; HOFLEY, RANDALL;
Objet : RE: Access Copyright Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Tariff, 2011-2013 - Ruling of the Board - Access Request of Feb. 10, 2014

Dear Mr. McDougall:

Pursuant to the Board's Ruling of March 7, 2014, attached, Access Copyright is to provide its reply to the ACCCs submissions no later than Monday, April 14. In light of the fact that Access Copyright's Reply Case is due to be filed in the K-12 tariff proceedings by April 16, we are requesting an extension of one week, i.e., to Monday, April 21, to respond to the ACCC's submissions.

Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions about this request.

Yours truly,

Nancy Brooks

Attachment: SFU commentary on AC Evidence re PSE Tariff.pdf


 

7 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Ruling dealing with Access Copyright's request of February 10, 2014 to seek leave to file supplementary evidence.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright - Post-Secondary (2011-2013) - Feb. 10, 2014 Request - March 7, 2014 Ruling.pdf


 

6 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access' request is granted. Access shall provide answers to the Board's questions of February 18, 2014 no later than Friday, March 28, 2014. Mr. Maguire can provide a response no later than Monday, April 7, 2014.

De : BROOKS, NANCY
Envoyé : 6 mars 2014 10:07
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : HOFLEY, RANDALL; Sean Maguire
Objet : RE: Access Copyright Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Tariff, 2011-2013 - Questions from the Board

Dear Mr. McDougall:

I am writing with respect to the Board's Notice of February 18, 2014 asking Access Copyright to provide answers to the attached Board questions by Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Given the intervention next week of the school March break in Ontario (which affects some counsel), our client's unavoidable unavailability from March 14-19 and the complexity of the issues raised in the Board's questions, we write to request an extension of the deadline to Friday, March 28, 2014.

Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions about this request.

Yours truly,

Nancy Brooks


 

6 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Ruling dealing with Access Copyright's request of December 13, 2013 to seek leave to introduce new evidence.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright - Post-Secondary (2011-2013) - Dec. 13 2013 Request - March 6, 2014 Ruling.pdf


 

5 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

In its Notice of February 18, 2014, the Board addressed a number of questions to Access Copyright. These questions are attached.

The beginning of Question 6 is revised as follows:

6. The Board's preliminary view is that the copying of a few pages or a small percentage from a book that is not a collection of short works, such as poems, is not substantial. Assuming that two pages or less of such a book is not a substantial part thereof, the Board would be of the preliminary view that, based on the coursepack copying dataset supplied to the Board, less than 3 per cent of the copying would not be compensable.

Attachment: Questions from the Board - Access Copyright - Post-Secondary (2011-2013) - Feb. 18, 2014.pdf


 

18 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is asked to provide answers to the attached Board's questions no later than Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Mr. Maguire is allowed to provide a response no later than Friday, March 28, 2014.

Attachment: Questions from the Board - Access Copyright - Post Secondary (2011-2013) - Feb. 18, 2014.pdf


 

13 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please see the attached Ruling of the Board.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright - Post Secondary (2011-2013) - Feb 13 2014.pdf


 

13 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

M. Maguire can respond to the attached Access request no later than Monday, February 17, 2014. Access can reply no later than Wednesday, February 19, 2014.

Attachment: 10feb2014 Letter to G McDougall RE Supplementary materials.pdf


 

7 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Following the February 4, 2014 decision of the Ontario Superior Court in relation to the University of Toronto's motion, the Board establishes new deadlines to its December 20, 2013 Notice: the University of Toronto may respond to the attached application of Access for leave to file additional evidence by no later than Tuesday, February 18, 2014. Access may reply no later than Friday, February 21, 2014.

In order to ensure that the answers provided by Access to the Board's questions are as complete as possible, the Board also establishes new deadlines in respect to its January 17, 2014 Notice: Access is asked to respond to Board's Questions no later than Friday, March 14, 2014. Mr. Maguire should inform the Board no later than Monday, March 17, 2014, whether he wishes to provide a response to Access' answers and provide the Board with an estimate of time needed to provide such response.

Attachment: 13dec2013 Letter to G McDougall - Access Post Secondary (2011-2013).pdf


 

17 janvier 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access is asked to supply as soon as possible all raw data, in Excel format, used to generate the report it filed as Exhibit AC-5 (Analysis of the Volume and Nature of the Copying of Published Works Documented in the Post-Secondary Coursepack Data Delivered to Access Copyright between 2005 and 2012).

Access is also asked to respond to the attached Board's questions no later than Friday, February 28, 2014. Mr. Maguire should inform the Board no later than Monday, March 3, 2014, whether he wishes to provide a response to Access' answers and provide the Board with an estimate of the time needed to provide such response.

The nature of the questions addressed by the Board are such that Access cannot realistically provide full answers before the start of the hearing currently scheduled for February 12, 2014. In addition, depending on whether the additional evidence filed by Access in respect of the University of Toronto is included in the file or not, the Board may well have additional questions to which Access could probably not respond before the scheduled starting date.

Furthermore, the staff is also currently analysing the legal issues at stake in this file, which will likely lead to a number of legal questions to Access.

Finally, the withdrawal of CAUT and CFS as well as Mr. Katz implies that the Board staff needs to play a more active role in the file.

For these reasons, and because of the additional drain on Board's resources this implies, the Board postpones sine die the hearing in this matter. After having received and analysed all answers from Access, and replies from Mr. Maguire, the Board will either decide when to reschedule the hearing or proceed on paper.

Attachment: Questions - Access Copyright - Post Secondary (2011-2013) - Jan. 17, 2014.pdf


 

13 janvier 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board grants U of T's request, agreed to by Access Copyright, to temporarily suspend the deadlines established in the Notice of the Board dated December 20, 2013, and defer any final ruling on the evidence to which this Notice relates until further notice.


 

20 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

In his letter of December 20, 2013, Ariel Katz requests that the Board order that the following information be placed on the public record:

  • the agreements between Access and other Reproduction Rights Organisations obtained in the context of Ariel Katz interrogatories to Access (AK-7), designated by Access as confidential information;
  • exhibit AC-2H (Access list of affiliates), also designated by Access as confidential information; and
  • a non-redacted version of his letter of December 20, 2013 and its Appendix.

Access may respond to Ariel Katz's requests by no later than Wednesday, January 8, 2014. Mr. Katz may reply by no later than Friday January 10, 2014.


 

20 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The University of Toronto may respond to the attached application of Access for leave to file additional evidence by no later than Monday, January 13, 2014. Access may reply by no later than Wednesday, January 15, 2014.


 

16 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board preliminary view is that the new evidence submitted by Access in the attached documents should be allowed in the record, and that the objectors should be allowed to respond to this new evidence no later Friday, January 10, 2014. No other remaining deadlines would be changed in the existing schedule.

The objectors can provide comments on the Board's preliminary view no later than Wednesday, December 18, 2013. Access can reply no later than Thursday, December 19, 2013.

Attachment: 13dec2013 Letter to G. McDougall.pdf


 

11 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

To accommodate the schedule of another matter before the Board, the hearing in the above-noted matter will start on Wednesday February 12, 2013, at 10:00 am, and not on Tuesday, February 11, 2013 as originally planned.


 

9 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Veuillez trouver ci-joint la décision de la Commission.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright - Post-Secondary (2011-2013) - Dec. 9, 2013.pdf


 

4 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

The November 18, 2013 application by Access Copyright to consolidate the examination of the above-referenced tariffs is denied. The examination of the proposed tariff for 2011-2013 will proceed as scheduled, subject to what the Board may decide when ruling on the November 7, 2013 application of professor Katz for a reference. The reasons for this ruling are as follows.

First, the proposed tariff for 2014-2017 purports to licence the so-called making available right. Notwithstanding the arguments of Access Copyright, the Board concludes that this raises significant new factual and legal issues. Both proposed tariffs suppose that posting a link or a hyperlink to a digital copy is a protected use. To support the conclusion, Access Copyright argues that such posting triggers both the making available right (mentioned in the 2014-2017 tariff) and the reproduction right (mentioned in the 2011-2013 tariff). Access Copyright does not comment on what may happen were the Board to conclude that such posting triggers the first right but not the second. The making available right, if it exists here, apparently is a form of the right to communicate a work "to the public": see s. 2.4(1.1) of the Copyright Act. If so, presumably the Board would then have to decide a mixed question of fact and law, i.e. what constitutes a "public" in the context of post-secondary education, a task that was not made simpler by Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37: see para. 27.

Adding these to the issues already raised by the 2011-2013 proposal would disrupt the current proceedings, slated for a hearing set to begin a mere two months hence. This, of itself, would be sufficient to justify denying the application.

Second, if any of the assertions of the objectors concerning past and continuing changes in the copying practices of potentially targeted institutions are correct, then certifying now, for 2014-2017, a tariff structured as Access Copyright proposes supposes far too great an ability to predict future copying practices. In such a potentially unstable market as this one, certifying tariffs based on what occurred, to the extent that this is indeed ascertainable, is (at least for the time being) preferable to certifying tariffs on the basis of what may happen. The continuation of the 2013 tariff on an interim basis pursuant to section 70.18 of the Act will provide sufficient certainty in the relevant market from January 1, 2014, until a tariff for the years 2014 and beyond is certified (assuming that the Board has the jurisdiction to certify such a tariff).

We note that some of the parties' pleadings in this application as well as in the related application seeking a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal have adopted a tone and aggressive style that is not appropriate in matters before this Board and fail to deal with the issues in an objective manner. The parties are requested to show greater respect and equanimity.


 

29 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board has received the attached letter. The Board does not wish to receive any comments on it.

Attachment: fp to McDougall, Copyright Board Nov. 29, 2013.pdf


 

22 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Given the specific circumstances of counsel to CAUT and CFS, and the consent of Access Copyright, the attached request by CAUT and CFS is granted.

CAUT and CFS may respond to Access' request of November 18, 2013 no later than Tuesday, November 26, 2013. Access Copyright may reply no later than Friday, November 29, 2013.

Attachment: 1) LT McDougall re extension for response to AC merger request - 21 Nov 13.pdf; 2) Hofley Email re merger motion - 21 Nov 2013


 

19 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Objectors in the files mentioned above can respond to the attached Access request no later than Thursday, November 21, 2013. Access can reply no later than Monday, November 25, 2013.

Attachment: 1) Comparaison Statement of Royalsties to be collected.pdf; 2) Ottawa #40300040-v2-18nov2013 Letter to G McDougall.pdf


 

13 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The following order deals with three issues: the submission filed by Professor Katz on November 12, 2013 outside the process established by the Board; the request by Professor Katz to adjourn the proceedings in the above-mentioned file; and, the request by Professor Katz for a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Professor Katz's submission of November 12, 2013 is clearly out of order and the Board rejects it outright. The Notice of the Board of November 7, 2013 is clear and unequivocal as to the timing of responses and replies the Board required in this instance. Where the Board issues timelines to be abided to by the parties, any deviation therefrom may only be made with prior leave from the Board.

The application for the adjournment of the proceedings before the Board is denied. It is the Board's opinion that, regardless of the Board's ruling on the application for a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal, the proceedings should not be postponed.

In the event that the Board decides to refer the matter to the Federal Court of Appeal as proposed by Professor Katz, no decision by the Court would render the proceedings before the Board moot. The existing timetable for the proceedings is therefore maintained. Parties are expected to govern themselves accordingly.

With respect to the application for a reference to the Federal Court of Appeal made by Professor Katz, the following timetable is hereby established:

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the Canadian Federation of University Students (CFUS) and Mr. Maguire may provide additional comments on Professor Katz' application of November 6, 2013 by no later than Monday, November 18, 2013 at noon;

Access Copyright may respond to all objectors' submissions by no later than Friday, November 22, 2013;

Professor Katz may reply to all submissions by no later than Friday, November 29, 2013.


 

7 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

With respect to Access Copyright's attached suggestion on the timelines to deal with Professor Ariel Katz's request dated November 6, 2013, Objectors may respond no later than Friday, November 8, 2013. Access Copyright can reply no later than Monday, November 11, 2013.

Attachment: Ottawa-#-v1-07nov2013 Letter to G. McDougall.pdf


 

10 septembre 2013up arrow

RULING OF THE BOARD

The information that Access Copyright will file as part of its case which concerns (i) the publishers' revenues and profits; (ii) the amount of secondary licensing revenues received by the publishers from Access Copyright; and (iii) the publishers' business strategies (collectively, "Information") is to be treated as highly confidential.

It shall be subject to the following procedural protections:

1. "Highly Confidential Information" means information a supplier believes is so commercially sensitive that disclosure to persons other than counsel of a party, a party who is a lawyer acting pro se or the external expert of a party would reasonably be expected to result in injury to the supplier.

2. Highly Confidential Information shall be provided by the supplier to a party who is a lawyer acting pro se and to counsel to a party, each of whom who may disclose it to no one except the lawyer's staff or counsel's staff, as the case may be, and the party's external experts and their staff. External experts and their staff shall not disclose the Highly Confidential Information to any other person.

3. No Highly Confidential Information may be disclosed to a person named in paragraphs 1 and 2 unless and until that person has executed and delivered to counsel to the supplier a signed Confidentiality Agreement in the form as attached to the Confidentiality Order.

4. It can be expected that at the hearing of this matter, a witness and/or counsel may wish to refer to the Highly Confidential Information orally. If during the oral hearing, counsel or a witness intends to refer to the Highly Confidential Information, counsel or a party who is a lawyer acting pro se shall advise the Board panel in advance in order to seek a ruling on how the Highly Confidential Information shall be dealt with during the hearing.


 

5 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Objectors can respond to the attached Access' request no later than Monday, September 9, 2013, at noon. Access can reply no later than Tuesday, September 10, 2013, at noon.

Attachment: 05sept2013 Letter to G. McDougall.pdf


 

16 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISION

ACCC can respond to Access Copyright's application referred to in the email reproduced below no later than Friday, July 19, 2013. Access can reply no later than Wednesday, July 24, 2013.


 

31 mai 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

ACCC requests leave to file the CMS study as evidence of the volume and nature of copying on course management systems. Access opposes this request.

ACCC's request is granted. The Board believes that the information to be collected by ACCC through the CMS study is potentially useful. In addition, notwithstanding Access' request to the contrary, there will be no a priori limit on how the CMS study may be used.

Access will be allowed to challenge any aspect of the study, including the methodology and the conclusions drawn by ACCC or its experts.


 

28 mai 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

Deficiencies 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: Institutions shall remedy forthwith the deficiencies claimed by Access or explain why they cannot do so.

Deficiency 2: The institution shall explain forthwith the discrepancy between the answers to Q105 and Q107, remedy the deficiencies claimed by Access or explain why it cannot do so.

Deficiencies are due to ACCC's failure to adequately respond to the Interrogatories. Given however that the schedule of proceedings is tight, the Board only partly grants Access' request for a time extension. Access shall file its statement no later than Friday, September 13, 2013.


 

17 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

ACCC can respond to the attached Access Copyright's request no later than Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

Attachment: Access Postsecondary - 17may2013 Letter to G McDougall.pdf


 

15 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

ACCC's letter of May 10, 2013 is not responsive to the questions posed by the Board on May 3, 2013 in at least two respects.

ACCC's response to question (c) [the nature of the random selection process of course sections] does not indicate either the statistical type of randomization (Gaussian distribution, recto-linear distribution, etc.) or the mechanical type of randomization. It does not indicate how many of the 50 courses sections received from each institution will be selected for the purposes of analysis. It does not explain why a two-step randomization process is advantageous or necessary.

Also, the fact that ACCC did not file any document responsive to question (f) [documents relating to the pre-test of the data] seems incompatible with the existence of extensive discussions with member institutions and the Technical Advisory Committee over a lengthy period of time mentioned in ACCC's response.

Furthermore, the Board is at a loss to understand certain of the issues or obstacles ACCC invokes to justify various aspects of the design of its proposed CMS study.

1) Academic freedom is mentioned several times in the letter. How would academic freedom be jeopardized by telling Access or the Board that professor A, who teaches course B, uses documents C and D during that course?

2) How does giving assurances that data collected will be anonymized help "to meet the challenges of respecting academic freedom and the intellectual property rights of professors and instructors"?

3) ACCC claims that the content of CMS sites is confidential, without further qualification. How does ACCC justify such a claim with respect to materials posted by a professor or instructor to be accessed by all course participants?

4) What makes the lists of all course sections offered in the Winter 2013 term confidential? Presumably, these lists are available at a minimum to all students eligible to register for each course. How can it be confidential that professor X delivers course Y in institution Z?

5) How can the intellectual property rights of those who create a CMS justify restraining access to relevant information used in a proceeding before the Board?

ACCC is asked to respond to the above no later than on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. The Board would prefer that other parties react to ACCC's response on Friday, May 24, 2013 at the same time as they will comment on ACCC's letter of May 10, but will entertain an application for a short delay if necessary.


 

3 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

ACCC shall supply to the Board and to other parties a description of the methodology ACCC intends to use in gathering, collating, analyzing and presenting the data, including:

  • (a) the names of the experts retained by ACCC;
  • (b) a description of how the data set will be created and the methods used to sort through the various types of information found on the CMS sites.
  • (c) the nature of the random selection process by which course sections are selected for analysis in this data gathering exercise;
  • (d) the plans for the data gathering exercise, including a description of the methods used to gather the information, the list of variables to be gathered and how they will be analyzed;
  • (e) how ACCC proposes that Access and the Board be allowed to test the reliability of a data set that will not contain the name of the institution, name of the professor, the name, course number, or section number of the course.
  • (f) If readily available, any documents relating to the pre-test of the data gathering exercise, including but not limited to
    1. which quantitative variables were collected;
    2. which qualitative or descriptive variables were collected;
    3. which variables were changed, dropped, or added as a result of the pre-test;
    4. any documents that analyze the pretest itself

ACCC shall supply this information no later than Friday, May 10, 2013. Other parties may respond to any documentation filed no later than Friday, May 24, 2013. ACCC may reply no later than Friday May 31, 2013.

Attachment: Letter to the Board re CMS Study April 30, 2013.pdf


 

16 avril 2013flèche par en haut

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Order dealing with Replies to Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance.

Attachment: Order - incomplete unsatisfactory response to interrogatories in abeyance - Access - Post-Secondary.pdf


 

21 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Taking into consideration the Easter holidays, the following schedule is set for the interrogatory process in the file mentioned above:

Responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, January 25, 2013

Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, March 15, 2013

Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions: no later than Tuesday, April 2, 2013

[Board Ruling]

Complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, May 10, 2013

The remainder of the calendar is unchanged.


 

23 octobre, 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board notes the withdrawal of the application of Access Copyright dated September 17, 2012.

At this stage, the Board does not expect that it will require any further evidence from or about the unlicensed AUCC institutions in these proceedings. Were this to change, parties will be afforded sufficient time to determine their course of action.


 

23 octobre, 2012flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

ACCESS INTERROGATORIES TO ACCC

Sampling

ACCC shall ask the 64 unlicensed institutions to provide the following information:

a) number of course-sections offered in one semester;

b) number of published documents in the CMS, if any;

c) number of published documents in the e-reserve system, if any.

A sample of one-quarter of unlicensed institutions, that is 16 institutions, shall be asked to answer the interrogatories in abeyance.

The fact that all institutions will supply a minimal amount of information will allow for the results of the sample to be put in statistical perspective. The sample was brought down from one-third (what ACCC suggested) to one-fourth so as to balance out the burden imposed on all the institutions. The answer to a) will be useful for scaling the information that will be obtained in response to Q. 105 to Q. 108. The answers to b) and c) will be useful for scaling the information that will be obtained in response to Q. 71 and Q. 81.

Otherwise, parties are reminded that institutions need only provide what they have, in the form they have it.

Q. 53: Access has confirmed that a general description of the equipment or devices where copies are stored is sufficient. The question as reformulated shall be answered.

Q. 71: If the information requested can be accessed and copied with reasonable efforts from a limited number of central folders, the question shall be answered for every work copied, unless Access agrees with the institution to limit this interrogatory to a representative sample of copies of published works drawn from the pool of documents. Otherwise, the question shall be answered for a sample of 10% of the courses up to a maximum of 75. Access may elect to let the institutions select the courses. If not, ACCC shall provide to Access a list of all the courses offered in each institution. Access shall then randomly select the sample from that list.

ACCC has not substantiated its claim that answering the interrogatories may trigger privacy or union issues. The interrogatory does not per se seek personal information. As such, if an institution has privacy or union concerns, is up to it to address them or to take appropriate arrangements with Access.

As offered by Access, institutions need not provide information as it pertains to hyperlinks or to copying done by students.

Q. 81: The information shall be provided as of September 30, 2012. If the information is not available as of that date, it shall be provided as of a date to be agreed upon by Access and the institution. If an institution does not have copies of published works on the digital library management system, it shall simply say so. Institutions that have e-reserve systems shall answer as described in Q. 71.

Q. 105, Q. 107: The interrogatories shall be answered in respect of one semester, between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012, the choice of which is left to Access. The semester need not be the same for all institutions.

If the information requested can be accessed and copied with reasonable efforts from a limited number of central folders, the interrogatory shall be answered for every course, unless Access agrees with an institution to limit the interrogatory to a representative sample of courses drawn from the pool of courses. Otherwise, the question shall be answered for a sample of 10% of the courses up to a maximum of 75. Access may elect to let the institutions select the courses. If not, ACCC shall provide to Access a list of all the courses offered in each institution. Access shall then randomly select the sample from that list. In answering Q. 107, an institution may supply a list instead of the works themselves if the list allows Access to determine which works are in its repertoire as well as the extent to which the work was copied.

The interrogatory shall be answered only with regards to (a), (d), (e) and (f). The rest of the requested information is irrelevant.

Q. 106: An answer shall be provided for those courses for which an answer was supplied in response to Q. 105. The interrogatory need not be answered with respect to students.

Q. 108: The interrogatory shall be answered in respect of each published work provided or listed in response to Q. 107.

Q. 117, Q. 119: Institutions shall make reasonable enquiries and provide what they have in the form they have it, as offered by ACCC.


 

16 octobre 2012flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

En référence à l'avis de la Commission en date du 28 septembre 2012, vous trouverez ci-joint la directive sur la procédure. Nous attirons votre attention sur les items suivants :

  1. La version électronique de la preuve (sur CD-ROM, DVD ou clé USB) doit être déposée auprès de la Commission en même temps que les copies papier à la date fixée pour ce faire. Vous devez aussi vous assurer que tous les participants reçoivent les versions papier et électronique le même jour que les documents sont déposés auprès de la Commission;
  2. En règle générale, les réponses aux demandes de renseignements ne sont PAS déposées auprès de la Commission. Les participants devraient déposer en preuve uniquement les réponses aux demandes de renseignements auxquelles ils entendent faire référence;
  3. Lorsque les participants déposent des documents auprès de la Commission, les renseignements confidentiels et hautement confidentiels doivent être surlignés en jaune et bleu, respectivement. La page titre du document doit indiquer si le document contient des renseignements confidentiels ou hautement confidentiels.

________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the Board's Notice of September 28, 2012, attached is the Directive on Procedure. We draw your attention on the following points:

  1. The electronic version of the evidence (on CD, DVD or USB key) should be filed with the Board, along with the hard copies on the date set for that purpose. You must also ensure that other participants receive their hard copy and electronic version on the same date the documents are filed with the Board;
  2. As a general rule, responses to interrogatories are NOT filed with the Board. Parties should only file as evidence those responses to interrogatories to which they know they intend to refer;
  3. When filing documents with the Board, confidential and highly confidential information should be highlighted in yellow and blue, respectively. The cover page of the document should indicate whether it includes confidential or highly confidential information.

Attachment: Access Post-Secondary - Directive on Procedure and Appendices new.pdf


 

12 octobre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

AUCC's request for an extension of time to Friday, October 19, 2012 to respond to Access Copyright application dated September 17, 2012 is granted. Access is allowed to file, if necessary, a short reply no later than on Wednesday, October 24, 2012.

Attachment: Access Copyright Tariff 2011-2012 - AUCC - letter to Board.pdf


 

1er octobre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

AUCC's request, attached, is granted.

AUCC and the institutions may respond to the application filed by Access Copyright for an Order requiring unlicensed AUCC member institutions to answer the interrogatories held in abeyance no later than on Friday, October 12, 2012.
Access is allowed to file a short reply no later than on Wednesday, October 17, 2012.


 

28 septembre 2012

RULING OF THE BOARD

As noted by Access, with respect to the above-referenced file, the deadline for filing replies to objections to interrogatories in abeyance in the Hearing schedule set by the Board on September 27, 2012, should have been Tuesday, October 2, 2012 (and not Friday, September 28, 2012). We apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. The corrected schedule is as follows:

Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Tuesday, October 2, 2012

[Board Ruling]

Responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, December 21, 2012

Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, February 8, 2013

Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions: no later than Friday, March 1, 2013

[Board Ruling]

Complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, April 26, 2013

Filing of Access' Case: no later than Friday, September 6, 2013

Filing of Objectors' Case: no later than Friday, December 20, 2013

Filing of Access' Reply: no later than Monday, January 27, 2014

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.

Access Copyright is granted 7 weeks to prepare deficiency complaints. ACCC is granted 3 weeks to respond. Access proposed 8+2 weeks. ACCC proposed 6+4 weeks. Access needs more time to analyze all responses than ACCC to respond to deficiency complaints. The Board's original schedule proposed 7+3. That is what the Board adopts.

Access is granted 18 weeks from the date set to provide full responses to the interrogatories in abeyance to file its case. ACCC is granted 16 weeks from the time Access will file its case to file its response. Access proposed 20+14 weeks, ACCC 17+17 weeks. Access can start its case preparation with the information it already has. However, the time allotted to Access should be longer if only because it includes the Summer.

The period between the filing of the reply of Access and the beginning of the hearing shall be 2 weeks, not 10 days as Access proposed or 17 days as proposed by ACCC. This should be sufficient to account for the Christmas season.

The indulgence requested by counsel for Access in her letter of September 21 is denied. Accordingly, the section of that letter dealing with the schedule leading up to the hearing is struck from the record.


 

27 septembre 2012

RULING OF THE BOARD

The schedule in the above-referenced proceedings shall be as follows:
Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, September 28, 2012
[Board Ruling]
Responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, December 21, 2012
Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, February 8, 2013
Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions: no later than Friday, March 1, 2013
[Board Ruling]
Complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories in abeyance: no later than Friday, April 26, 2013
Filing of Access' Case: no later than Friday, September 6, 2013
Filing of Objectors' Case: no later than Friday, December 20, 2013
Filing of Access' Reply: no later than Monday, January 27, 2014
Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.
Access Copyright is granted 7 weeks to prepare deficiency complaints. ACCC is granted 3 weeks to respond. Access proposed 8+2 weeks. ACCC proposed 6+4 weeks. Access needs more time to analyze all responses than ACCC to respond to deficiency complaints. The Board's original schedule proposed 7+3. That is what the Board adopts.
Access is granted 18 weeks from the date set to provide full responses to the interrogatories in abeyance to file its case. ACCC is granted 16 weeks from the time Access will file its case to file its response. Access proposed 20+14 weeks, ACCC 17+17 weeks. Access can start its case preparation with the information it already has. However, the time allotted to Access should be longer if only because it includes the Summer.
The period between the filing of the reply of Access and the beginning of the hearing shall be 2 weeks, not 10 days as Access proposed or 17 days as proposed by ACCC. This should be sufficient to account for the Christmas season.
The indulgence requested by counsel for Access in her letter of September 21 is denied. Accordingly, the section of that letter dealing with the schedule leading up to the hearing is struck from the record.


 

25 septembre 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access's request described below is granted.

Dear Mr. McDougall:

I am writing in respect of the Board's order dated September 7, 2012 in which it ordered Access Copyright to file the ACCC objections and its reply thereto with the Board by Friday, September 28, 2012. We are working through the ACCC's objections to the interrogatories in abeyance. However, given the volume of this task, we write to request a short extension of the deadline - to Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - to respond to the objections .

If you have any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours truly,

Nancy Brooks


 

19 septembre 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

This order follows up on the September 17, 2012 application of Access Copyright, a copy of which is attached.

To the extent this has not already been done, Access shall supply forthwith to AUCC and to the institutions mentioned in Appendix A to the application of Access a copy of every document referred to in the application.

AUCC and the institutions are reminded that, pursuant to paragraph E) of the Board's Order of September 7, 2012, they may respond to the application no later than on Monday, October 1, 2012.

Access will be allowed to a short reply, to be filed no later than on Friday, October 5, 2012.

Attachment: Access Copyright Sept. 17, 2012 application - Access Copyright - Post Secondary . .pdf


 

7 septembre 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Order dealing with the Interrogatories held in abeyance.

Attachment : Access Post Secondary - Order - Interrogatories in abeyance


 

7 septembre 2012

RULING OF THE BOARD

ACCESS COPYRIGHT INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO ACCC

Q21: (Lethbridge Community College, University College of the North) the institutions shall provide the additional information offered in response to the first and second parts of the question. Concerning the interim tariff, answered. The interrogatory asks whom the Institution believes is subject to the tariff. Although the answer may be wrong (there is no opt-out clause in the interim tariff), the institutions have indicated who they believe is covered.

Q24: Lethbridge Community College, University College of the North: however surprising it may seem that the contracts referred to do not address at all the copying of copyrighted material, answered.

Q33: Holland College: permission letters shall be provided in response to c) if they have not already been provided in response to Q121. Tracking is not limited to counting of copies. Requiring that permission letters be provided to the central copying facility and that copies of permission letters be kept by departments is a form of tracking.

Q45: University College of the North: if the Institution has documentation, policies or agreements relating to works placed on reserve that address Access' questions (e.g., a document that explains how faculty are expected to show that the policy is being followed), it shall provide them in response to d). Otherwise, answered.

Q110: Answered. The documentation or information requested does indeed pertain to the procedure to obtain permission and not the permission itself. That being said, the issue is moot. To the extent the Institution is not already required to provide permission letters pursuant to this Ruling in response to Interrogatory 33, they shall be provided pursuant to Q121 as offered by ACCC.

Q129: Answered. An institution that does not produce any licensing contracts may be deemed not to have obtained any licences and as such, may almost certainly be deemed to "need" the tariff.


 

10 août 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The Objectors and AUCC are asked to comment on the attached correspondence by no later than Wednesday, August 22, 2012.

Access Copyright may reply to ACCC's correspondence by the same date.

Attachment: 1) Letter from R. Hofley to G. McDougall dated August 8, 2012.pdf;
2) Letter from W. Noel to G. McDougall dated August 8, 2012.pdf


 

7 juin 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

ACCC's request for an extension of the deadline to Friday, August 10, 2012 to provide a status report on the survey discussions, to which Access Copyright does not oppose, is granted.


 

4 juin 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

ACCC shall respond to Access Copyright's request (attached) by no later than Tuesday, June 5, 2012. Access can provide a reply no later than Wednesday, June 6, 2012.

Attachment: 04june2012 Letter to G McDougall.pdf; ACCC MODEL LICENCE.pdf


 

7 mai 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright and ACCC's request for an extension of the deadline to June 4, 2012 to provide a status report on the survey discussions is granted.


 

1 mai 2012

RULING OF THE BOARD

ACCESS COPYRIGHT INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO ACCC (Northern Lights College)

Q21, Q22: The motions are dismissed. ACCC has provided every way in which Copies are made with reference to the activities identified in the definition of "Copy".

26: The motion is granted. ACCC shall provide a description of the uses of "open access" materials in and by the institution. The Board notes that the web site of the institution's library contains numerous references to materials available through the Directory of Open Access Journals. This makes uses of open access materials "in" the institution highly likely. Failure to provide a satisfactory answer may well result in the Board concluding that the institution makes little or no use of open access materials.


 

26 avril 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The schedule proposed by Access Copyright and ACCC (attached for convenience) - [Schedule is reproduced below in the April 20, 2012 entry] applies to the sample of ACCC opt-out institutions.


 

20 avril 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

AUCC shall provide a response to ACCC and Access Copyright request described below by no later than Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at noon. ACCC and Access Copyright shall reply by no later than Wednesday April 25, 2012 at 5pm.

ACCC and Access Copyright's request: 
We write concerning completion of the interrogatories process with respect to the sample of Opt-Out Institutions, which is required as a result of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissing the application for judicial review brought by the AUCC et al.

Opt-Out Institutions Sample

Please note that, due to errors in the original sample pool, the sample of AUCC opt-out institutions has changed since the list was filed with the Board on September 27, 2011. As now agreed by the parties, the representative sample of Opt-Out Institutions required to respond to Access Copyright's interrogatories is as follows:

ACCC

Group

Institution

A

Holland College

A

Lethbridge College

A

University College of the North

B

Northern Lights

AUCC

Group

Institution

A

Brandon University

A

Campion College (affiliate of U of Regina)

A

University of Guelph

B

Athabasca University

B

Mount Royal University

B

Nova Scotia College of Art & Design

B

Royal Roads University

B

University of Alberta

B

University of British Columbia

B

University of Saskatchewan

B

University of Waterloo

B

York University

Letter to Opt-Out Institutions:

The Board's August 25, 2011 Ruling provided that the letter to the Opt-Out Institutions should be sent on September 27, 2011. We expect that the letter to the Opt-Out Institutions (version as attached to the Board's September 20, 2011 Order) can be sent immediately.

Schedule for Opt-Out A Institutions

Applying the same time periods as set by the Board in its September 20, 2011 Order, we propose the following schedule for completion of the interrogatories process by Opt-Out A Institutions:

  1. Answers to interrogatories: no later than Tuesday, June 19, 2012
  2. Notice with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses: no later than Monday, July 23, 2012
  3. Filing with the Board of replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Tuesday, August 7, 2012
  4. Filing of complete/satisfactory responses: no later than six weeks following the decision of the Board on deficiency claims

Schedule for Opt-Out B Institutions

With respect to the Opt-Out B Institutions, these Institutions have already completed steps 1 and 2, above. The AUCC and ACCC have been provided with Access Copyright's claimed deficiencies with respect to the Opt-Out B Institutions. Applying the same time periods as set by the Board in its September 20, 2011 Order, the following schedule is proposed for the process for Opt-Out B Institutions:

  1. Notice with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses: Already completed
  2. Filing with the Board of replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Thursday, April 26, 2012
  3. Filing of complete/satisfactory responses: no later than six weeks following the decision of the Board on deficiency claims

Requested Ruling

Counsel for the ACCC has agreed to the schedule set out above. Mr. Bloom has been given notice of the above but has not responded on behalf of the AUCC.

The ACCC and Access Copyright respectfully request that the Board issue an order setting the schedule as set out above.

I note that the first deadline under the proposed schedule occurs on April 26, 2012. We respectfully request that the Board seek the AUCC's position as soon as practicable so that the interrogatories process regarding these institutions may be completed in a timely manner.


 

17 avril 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The parties' request for an extension until Monday, May 7, 2012 to provide a status report in response to the January 31, 2012 Notice of the Board is granted.


 

31 janvier 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

AUCC's, ACCC's and Access Copyright's request of January 30, 2012 (see below) that parties be allowed to provide a further progress report on the negotiations of a survey design is granted. Parties shall provide such progress report on or before Monday, April 16, 2012.

ACCC’s, AUCC’s and Access Copyright’s request:
Mr. McDougall, I am writing to you pursuant to the Notice of the Board dated November 24, 2011 on behalf of AUCC and with the consent of ACCC and Access Copyright to provide a progress report on the negotiations of a survey design.  The parties met on January 25, 2012 and discussed in detail a survey design proposed by AUCC and ACCC earlier this month.  The parties will continue to meet to discuss a survey design.  The parties have scheduled February 29, 2012 and April 10, 2012 (if required) for further meetings.  The parties request that the Board issue a further notice requiring them to provide a further progress report on the negotiations of a survey design by April 15, 2012.


 

25 janvier 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The attached documents are sent to you as per the Order of the Board of today. [Documents not attached as they are confidential]


25 janvier 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

On November 18, 2011, the Board issued a ruling dealing with the grounds for deficiencies regarding the answers provided by the parties in the context of Interrogatories.

In Section VIII of the Board’s ruling pertaining to Prof. Katz’ Interrogatories addressed to Access Copyright, the Board ruled that Access should not redact documents based on what it considers to be irrelevant.

On December 20, 2011, through a motion for clarification, Access asked that it be allowed to redact from certain documents information that it considers not relevant to the proceedings. Access provided the Board with the redacted version of the documents supplied to Prof. Katz as well as its unredacted version.  

Prof. Katz submits that the Board’s ruling of November 18, 2011 is unequivocal and does not require a clarification or ruling of any kind.

The application of Access is essentially dismissed for the following reasons.

The principle that governs Interrogatories is that if a document contains information that is responsive to the Interrogatory, it should be supplied in an unredacted form.

That being said, an application to prevent the disclosure of confidential information is not per se illegitimate. Under certain circumstances, it is perfectly normal for a collective (or an objector, for that matter) to seek to limit the circulation of confidential information to what is necessary. Such would be the case, for example, where the potential prejudice resulting from disclosure far outweighs the (non-existing) advantage to the recipient from receiving clearly irrelevant, yet sensitive information. The non-redaction principle, therefore, is open to exceptions.

However, an exception to the principle supposes that the person seeking the exception should display the utmost diligence in limiting redactions to what is clearly, inherently irrelevant and leaving unredacted anything that may be even marginally relevant, or even merely helpful in supplying context to clearly relevant information. In this instance, a comparative analysis of the redacted and non-redacted versions of the documents Access supplied to Prof. Katz makes it clear that the proposed redactions are excessive, to the point that clearly relevant information was removed. For example:

-        Access redacted the document entitled “Board of Directors II” almost entirely, except for some information pertaining to an indemnity provision that the New-Zealand RRO provides for in its licences and the impact of this provision on the bilateral agreement between Access and the New-Zealand collective. Access did not, as it should have, leave unredacted the whole section pertaining to this issue, thereby omitting information that is responsive to the interrogatory (i.e., impact of such indemnification scheme on rights holders in Canada) as well as contextual information without which is it is difficult to understand the answer.

-        The same can be said of the document entitled “Licensing Committee Meeting, June 10, 2005”, Sections 4 (Copyright Board Proceedings Update) and 5 (Digital Coursepack Pilot Project). Redactions make it difficult to understand the context of the answer in the case of section 4 and omit elements that are responsive to the Interrogatory in the case of section 5.

With respect to the document entitled “Negotiation Notes Minutes of meeting of AUCC and Access Copyright - April 23, 2003”, Access argues that the document is privileged because it pertains to a “settlement which led up to the signing by AUCC members of the licence in 2005.” This is a mischaracterisation. The document does not discuss the settlement of a dispute between the parties; it only summarizes what was discussed at a meeting between Access and a party other than Prof. Katz in the context of negotiations intended to lead to the conclusion of a licence.

The redaction proposed by Access is not satisfactory. The case has not been made to justify derogating from the non-redaction principle. Therefore, the only valid course of action is to revert to the principle and dismiss the application of Access, subject to what follows.

1) Some information that is clearly of no benefit to Prof. Katz and likely to be prejudicial to Access if it were disclosed should be redacted.

2) The “Summary of Board Motions 1987 to 2010” is of a different nature than other documents and calls for a different approach. The document is an open book into the corporate history of Access. Furthermore, it is structured by themes. Section 1 lists all the motions that pertain to Administration, Section 2, Finance, Section 3, Staffing/Consultants, Section 4, Board and Committee, etc. Given the structure, it makes sense to assimilate each section to a stand-alone document and supply only those sections that contain elements that are responsive to Prof. Katz’ interrogatories, namely Sections 8 (Data Collection and Processing), 10 (Licensing), 12 (Repertoire) and 13 (International Repertoire).

Passages which the Board concludes should be redacted have been underlined in red in the relevant documents, a copy of which Access will receive, by separate email. No later than on Thursday, February 2, 2012, Access shall supply to Prof. Katz the documents for which the application for redaction was made, in a form that reflects the Board’s redactions. The delay in making this Order enforceable will allow Access to take any course of action it may find justified under the circumstances before final disclosure is made to Prof. Katz.


 

24 novembre 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

AUCC's and ACCC's request of November 15, 2011 (attached) that parties be allowed to provide a progress report on the negotiations of a survey design on or before January 30, 2012 is granted.

Attachment: access copyright letter to Board from AUCC and ACCC - survey design.pdf


 

18 novembre 2011

Attached is the Ruling of the Board with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses to Interrogatories. The new deadline for the filing of complete/satisfactory responses to Interrogatories, is set at no later than Wednesday, December 21, 2011.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Post Secondary - Deficiencies.pdf


 

24 octobre 2011

The Participants' request, as described below, is granted.

The Participants request: 
Mr. McDougall, I am writing to you on behalf of AUCC, ACCC and Access Copyright (the “Participants”).

The participants have met in person with their experts to discuss the design of a survey of copying behaviour.  The Participants have scheduled another in person meeting with their experts on November 10, 2011 to discuss the design of the survey.  In view of the impending meeting, the Participants request an extension to November 15, 2011 to respond to the Notice of the Board dated October 19, 2011.


 

18 octobre 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On March 11, 2011, the Board set a partial schedule (later revised) for the purpose of the interrogatories. The remainder of the schedule leading to the hearing, that could or could not include a study of copying behaviour, was to be set once participants had agreed on whether such study will be conducted.

The Board would like to receive from participants, by no later than Friday, October 28, 2011, a status report (jointly, if possible) on the study.


 

10 octobre 2011

The September 20, 2011 ruling only concerns opt out institutions. The timelines set out in the August 18 order for dealing with interrogatories apply to other participants, except for AUCC and ACCC which have requested and obtained a one week extension.


 

6 octobre 2011

AUCC and ACCC's request, as described in the attached letter, is granted.

Attachment: LETTER to Board joint extension request 6 October 2011 with revised date .pdf


 

23 septembre 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Copyright Board of Canada has rendered its decision in the above-noted matter. It is posted on the Board’s web site under the heading "What’s New - Recent Decisions" at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html.


 

20 septembre 2011

ORDER OF THE BOARD

AUCC, ACCC (jointly the associations) and Access have failed to agree on two of the three issues the Board ordered them to discuss on August 18, 2011.

The parties failed to agree on a list of opt-out institutions that will be required to answer interrogatories. Access proposes that the parties’ survey experts jointly select two-thirds of institutions who opted out of the tariff on January 1, 2011 and two-thirds of those who did so on September 1, 2011, some of which have already provided answers to interrogatories. Alternatively, Access proposes choosing itself half of the institutions considered together according to size and type. The associations argue that one-third of opt-outs is a reasonable number to meet the information requirements of Access.

The Board accepts that a sample made up of one-third of opt-out institutions is not sufficient to generate statistically significant results. Nevertheless, the Board considers such a sample acceptable for three reasons. First, any random sample drawn from a small universe, regardless of the relative size of that sample to the universe, is problematic. Put differently, a two-thirds sample would suffer from many of the same difficulties as one half that size. Second, the goal of asking questions to the opt-out institutions is not to produce statistically significant results; rather it is to serve as a basis for comparison with the non-opt-out institutions. Third, experience teaches that it is sometimes better to ask for what a party offers and insist that it be provided than to ask that same party for more and deal with the inevitable excuses that will follow.

Splitting opt-out institutions into two groups makes no sense and only serves to further whittle away the reliability of the data so obtained. Therefore, a single selection shall be made out of the whole group. Selected institutions that have already provided information shall be required to continue to participate in the existing interrogatories process. Those that have not will be required to answer the interrogatories of Access pursuant to the timetable below.

The parties’ survey experts shall provide a sample that complies with the above no later than Tuesday, September 27, 2011, according to any method they may agree to. If by that date, an agreement has not been reached, Access shall determine the sample no later than Tuesday, October 4, 2011 and justify its choices. Subject to the Board’s review of that sample, those institutions will be asked to answer the interrogatories.

The parties agreed on the text of a letter to be addressed by them jointly to the selected institutions, requiring their participation. That text, however, appears too convoluted. The attached letter should be used instead, unless parties submit comments, by no later than Tuesday, September 27, 2011. Given what is ordered in the previous paragraph, it is no longer possible for the parties to write to the institutions that will be asked to answer the interrogatories by September 26, 2011 as provided earlier. The Board will set that date at the same time as it will rule on its review of the sample to be provided pursuant to the previous paragraph.

The parties failed to agree on a timetable to deal with the selected institutions’ responses. The associations proposed a timetable ending on March 20, 2012. According to them, institutions that have responded to interrogatories to date had two months and 23 days to answer. Opt-out institutions should have as much time to comply. Access proposed a timetable ending on January 30, 2012, for reasons that need not be repeated here.

The timetable the associations propose is for six months, not three. On the other hand, two facts must be taken into account. First, institutions cannot know they will be asked to respond until they are so told. Second, because of the parties’ failure to agree on a sample, selected institutions will not know this until at least two weeks, maybe three. Realistically, therefore, time to answer cannot start counting until Tuesday, October 11, 2011. Consequently, the associations’ proposal that answers be provided by December 19, 2011 makes sense. The timetable could be somewhat tightened to account for the fact that the associations have already gone through the interrogatory process with other institutions. This, however, would result in no significant gain. Here again, the Board prefers to accept what the associations propose and insist that it be complied with than tighten the process and deal with the excuses that will follow.

Consequently, the schedule shall be as follows:

Answers to interrogatories: no later than Monday, December 19, 2011

Notice with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses: no later than Friday, January 20, 2012

Filing with the Board of replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issues: no later thanFriday, February 3, 2012

Filing of complete/satisfactory responses: no later thanTuesday, March 20, 2012

The associations ask that opt-out institutions not be required at this time to answer interrogatories that were held in abeyance pending the negotiation of a survey. The August 18, 2011 ruling ordered that those questions be answered. The associations now inform us that some opt-out institutions may be asked (and accept) to participate in the survey. They also point out that the Board has yet to deal with the objections the associations raised with respect to these interrogatories. Since the interrogatories are meant to provide information in the absence of a survey, it would be premature to ask that institutions answer them. To the extent that opt-out institutions, irrespective of when they decided to opt-out of the tariff, accept to participate in the survey, the matter will become moot. If not, the matter can be revisited in due course.

Attachment: Letter - Post-Secondary (2011-2013).pdf


 

13 septembre 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD
On August 18, 2011, the Board issued a ruling providing in part that Access would be allowed to obtain information from institutions that do not avail themselves of the interim tariff (the "opt-out institutions"). On September 12, ACCC asked that the Board reconsider this ruling for two reasons. First, opt-out institutions have severed their licensing relationship with Access. They do not currently intend to be "prospective users" of the repertoire of Access; therefore, as a matter of law, they should not be required to comply with the Board’s ruling. Second, since 68 of 77 institutions have responded to interrogatories, Access already has in its possession more than a reasonable amount of relevant information from a reasonable number of institutions. There is no information in the possession of the opt-out institutions which could affect the Board’s consideration of the tariff under examination.

The first argument misses the point. The reference to "prospective users" in subsection 67.1(5) of the Copyright Act, which section 70.14 incorporates by reference in the general regime, is to users of the final tariff. Opt-out institutions do not know whether they may now be making protected uses requiring their compliance with a final tariff that does not yet exist. They can sever their relationship with Access if, and only if, they make no unauthorized, protected use of the repertoire of Access; that relationship is governed by facts and law, not intentions. More importantly, the Board’s power to order someone to provide relevant information is not limited to prospective users.

The second argument is misplaced. Access has no information from opt-out institutions. And as stated in the August 18 ruling, "[t]he June 6, 2011 ruling is clear: information concerning these institutions is relevant." The August 18 ruling required Access and ACCC to agree on which opt-out institutions should be approached precisely in order that only a reasonable number of these institutions be required to respond to the questions of Access.
The application for reconsideration is dismissed.


 

8 septembre 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please note that the Decision of the Board with respect to the above-referenced matter is posted on the Board's website under the heading "What's New/Recent Decisions" at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca.


 

25 août 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Board grants AUCC's request, and adopts it's proposed schedule, as described in the attached letter.

Attachment: AUCC letter to Board Aug 25 2011.pdf


 

23 août 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

Twice in these proceedings, Alberta sought to obtain a status that would allow it to intervene without having to answer interrogatories. Both times the Board refused.
Alberta is now declining to respond to some questions on two accounts.
Alberta claims that it is not responsible for establishing copyright policies for the institutions targeted in the proposed tariff and has no direct responsibility, nor direct knowledge of copyright arrangements made by them. Institutions are autonomous agencies responsible for establishing their own policies and procedures. As a result, Alberta is unable to provide "substantial information" for a number of questions. However, Alberta relies on its strategic interest in these proceedings, due to its role as the primary funding source for these institutions, to ask that it remain as an active intervenor. Access responds that if Alberta can offer no useful information that will assist the Board in setting a fair tariff, its participation as intervenor serves no useful purpose. Alberta replies that its participation is a settled matter, that it has a clear interest and that the perspective of the primary funder is crucial and useful.

Alberta has little relevant information to provide, given its role within the educational system. It wants to provide the "perspective" of the "primary funder" of targeted institutions. It does not intend to file evidence or cross-examine witnesses. This is precisely what the Board would expect of a person acting as commentator pursuant to the Directive on Procedure. The application of Access is granted. Alberta’s status as intervenor is terminated.

Alberta relies on its freedom of information and privacy protection legislation to decline providing documents it claims are privileged or confidential. Access counters that the legislation does not apply, that nothing is personal information and that the Board’s confidentiality order settles the issue. Alberta replies that the legislation either allows or compels it to refuse disclosure.
On the one hand, Access’ comment on personal information is besides the point: Alberta is not claiming that Access seeks to disclose personal information. On the other, Alberta’s non-disclosure claim fails on three accounts. First, paragraph 3(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Alberta) provides that it "does not affect the power of any court or tribunal in Canada to compel a witness to testify or to compel the production of documents." Second, the exceptions to disclosure on which Alberta relies are for the purposes of dealing with access to information requests and are therefore irrelevant. Third, it is difficult to conceive that provincial legislation could prevent a federal agency from either gaining access to information or at least making the continued participation of a province to a proceeding contingent on gaining such access.

Had Alberta retained its status as intervenor, the Board would have ordered that it answer the questions. Had Alberta wished to prevent disclosure of certain documents, it would have had to rely on the Canada Evidence Act and convince the Board that a relevant privilege or some form of specific public interest justified that the information not be provided to Access Copyright. However, since Alberta hereby ceases to be an intervenor, the issue is moot.


 

18 août 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

This ruling is in regards to the applications made by Access Copyright in its letter dated July 20, 2011.

The application for an extension of time to deal with interrogatories is granted. The schedule is modified as follows:

  • Deadline for exchanges of notices of the grounds for deficiencies with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses to interrogatories: Friday, September 16, 2011.
  • Deadline for filing replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issue: Friday, October 7, 2011.
  • [Ruling of the Board]
  • Deadline for filing of complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: Friday, November 18, 2011.


The application for an order preventing objectors to file supplementary responses is denied. If better information exists, it should be provided. Adding to a response is the very purpose of dealing with deficiencies, which the Board will be asked to address after October 7. That being said, parties should not respond in a manner that forces the recipient to unnecessarily reanalyse that which has already been scrutinised. Any supplementary response should clearly indicate what is changed from the original response.

The application for an order allowing Access to obtain information from institutions that do not avail themselves of the interim tariff (the "opt-out institutions") is granted. The June 6, 2011 ruling is clear: information concerning these institutions is relevant. AUCC and ACCC shall provide complete answers to the interrogatories, including (for the reasons set out by Access) interrogatories that were held in abeyance pending the negotiation of a survey, from a representative sample of opt-out institutions. The matter shall be dealt with as follows.

  • 1) No later than on Friday, August 26, 2011, AUCC, ACCC and Access Copyright shall agree on

    • A list of opt-out institutions that will be required to answer interrogatories;

    • A letter to be addressed by them jointly to the selected institutions, requiring their participation, and;

    • A timetable to deal with the selected institutions’ responses (filing of responses, complaints about deficiencies, etc.).

  • 2) The letter to the selected institutions shall mention the following:

    • It is pursuant to an Order of the Board that the institution is required to answer the questions addressed to it;

    • An institution that does not respond as required may be compelled by way of subpoena to do so;

    • Objectors may be prohibited from adducing evidence about an institution that does not respond as required. If such an order is made, Access will still be allowed to adduce evidence about the institution, but objectors will not be allowed to refute such evidence except with leave of the Board;

    • An institution that does not avail itself of the interim tariff cannot take for granted that it will bear no liability under the final tariff, that its liability will not be retroactive or that it will not be compelled, pursuant to the final tariff, to provide information about its copying habits during the period between January 1, 2011 and the date on which the final tariff is certified, unless it is certain that neither the institution nor its agents make any protected use of the relevant repertoire during the relevant period or periods to be set out in the final tariff.

  • 3) The list, letter and timetable shall be filed with the Board no later than Monday, August 29, 2011.

  • 4) The Board will advise the parties of any changes it wishes to make to the list, letter or timetable no later than Friday, September 2, 2011.

  • 5) The letter shall be sent to the head of the institution (or to such other person as Access and the relevant association may agree) no later than Thursday, September 8, 2011.

  • 6) Access may file with the Board an application prohibiting any objector from adducing evidence about an institution that does not provide responses by the date provided to do so, or that does not remedy a deficient response by the date provided to do so. Once such order has been issued, Access will be allowed to adduce evidence about the institution, but objectors will not be allowed to refute such evidence except with leave of the Board.

  • 7) A lack of information concerning copying habits at opt-out institutions might tend to increase any FTE royalty the Board may decide to certify. This would happen if the average volume of copying of works from Access Copyright’s repertoire by opt-out institutions was less than by other institutions. This will not prevent the Board from certifying such a royalty based on an imperfect record.

  • 8) The Board reminds the objectors that an institution’s decision not to avail itself of the interim tariff in no way guarantees that it will bear no liability under the final tariff, that its liability will not be retroactive or that it will not be compelled, pursuant to the final tariff, to provide information about its copying habits during the period between January 1, 2011 and the date on which the final tariff is certified, unless it is certain that neither the institution nor its agents make any protected use of the relevant repertoire during the relevant period or periods to be set out in the final tariff. Indeed, the absence of evidence on the copying practices of opt-out institutions can only make it more difficult for the Board to design the final tariff so as to respond to any legitimate concerns of these institutions.

 

21 juillet 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Copyright Board acknowledges the receipt of Access Copyright’s letter dated July 20, 2011 in which it requested an extension to deadlines currently set for the completion of the interrogatories process as well as various orders from the Board.

The Board has reviewed the letter and the requests therein and directs the parties to file responding submissions with respect to the letter by close of business on Tuesday, August 2, 2011. Access Copyright may reply by close of business on Monday, August 8, 2011.

The current deadlines provided in the Board’s Notice of March 11, 2011 are hereby suspended until all submissions are received.


 

28 juin 2011

Please find attached the Decision of the Board with respect to the above-referenced matter. The decision is also posted on the Board's website under the heading "What's New/Recent Decisions" http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2011/20110628

Attachment:
Access Post-Secondary Decision - Application to Vary - Academic Year.pdf


 

17 juin 2011

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The June 15, 2011 "encouragement" from professor Katz that the Commissioner of Competition be asked to participate in the examination of the June 8, 2011 application by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada for the addition of a transactional licence in the Access Copyright Interim Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff, 2011-2013 is noted.

The Board is aware of section 125 of the Competition Act. Any resort to this provision in these proceedings would have to be at a much later stage, such as once the evidence and arguments of the parties have been filed. Asking the Commissioner to participate in the examination of an application to amend an interim tariff would be both unhelpful and disruptive.

It would be unhelpful because the Board’s policy with respect to interim tariffs in general, and this interim tariff in particular, is first and foremost to extend the status quo unless convinced to do otherwise. Some may wish to argue that the very state of affairs existing before the interim tariff was put in place raised competition issues. To the extent this is even relevant at this stage of the process, it can be addressed on the basis of the parties’ submissions.

It would be disruptive because interim matters should be dealt with "in an expeditious manner on the basis of evidence which would often be insufficient for the purposes of the final decision." [Bell Canada v. Canada (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722] The participation of the Commissioner would achieve the opposite.

Considering the above, parties will refrain from commenting in any way on the above-referenced encouragement.


 

16 juin 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Mr. Katz's request of June 15, 2011 to extend the time for responding to the AUCC application regarding transactional licences is granted. Accordingly, today's deadline to reply to AUCC's application is extended in the following way:

Objectors' response on the AUCC's application: by no later than Monday, June 27, 2011. ACCC will be allowed to add to its response of today.

Access Copyright's response to objectors' submissions and AUCC's application: by no later than Friday, July 8, 2011.

AUCC and other objectors' reply: by no later than Tuesday, July 19, 2011.


 

10 juin 2011

The Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Association of University Teachers' request is granted.

The CFS’ and CAUT’s request:
Dear Mr. McDougall,

I write to apply for a variance of the Board's notice of March 11, 2011.  As you will recall, the parties will have to exchange their responses to the interrogatories no later than June 13, 2011.  My clients' members are having difficulty completing their responses to Access Copyright's interrogatories by that deadline and my clients accordingly seek a short extension.  Access Copyright's counsel has generously agreed to an extension not later than June 23, 2011 provided that Access is granted the same extension for responding to my interrogatories.  My clients consent to Access Copyright's extension request.  While June 23 is later than all parties would prefer, given the complexity of the issues, the resource capacities of my clients' members, and their unfamiliarity with the contents of the interrogatories, it is a realistic date. 

Therefore, I respectfully request that the Board grant the requested variance.  


 

9 juin 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties have until Thursday, June 16, 2011 to reply to AUCC's application. AUCC can file a response by no later than Thursday, June 23, 2011.


9 juin 2011

Mr. Katz's request is granted.

Mr. Katz’s request:
Dear Mr. McDougall,

I am writing to apply for a variance of the Board's notice of March 11, 2011.  As you will recall, the parties will have to exchange their responses to the interrogatories no later than June 13, 2011.  I may have some difficulty completing my response to Access Copyright's interrogatories by that deadline and I would like to seek a short extension.  Access Copyright's counsel has generously agreed to an extension not later than June 17, 2011 provided that Access is granted the same extension for responding to my interrogatories.

Therefore, I request that the Board grant an extension accordingly.  


 

6 juin 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board thanks the parties for their comments, some of which are reflected in the attached order dealing with information requested during the interrogatory exchange process for which confidential treatment may be claimed. A version that compares the final order with the previous draft is also attached.

Please note the following:

1) The wording of the order has been adjusted to allow an unrepresented party to both provide and receive confidential information.

2) The order still provides that only external counsel are entitled to retain information supplied on a confidential basis once the proceedings have ended. The person who supplies information in response to an interrogatory "owns" that information, not the recipient. If information is claimed to be confidential and the person who received it does not file it as evidence, the information is not relevant to the proceedings. The argument that a party should be allowed to keep a copy of the record is irrelevant, since information supplied during interrogatories and which is not filed with the Board is not part of the record. There is no reason to treat any unrepresented party, whether or not a member of the Bar, differently than the others.

3) Parties are reminded that all information, confidential or not, that is supplied in the course of interrogatories and not made part of the record is subject to a deemed undertaking that it shall be used only for the purposes of these proceedings. It is up to the parties to familiarize themselves with the ambit of that undertaking and to govern themselves accordingly.

Attachments:Confidentiality Order - Access Post Secondary.pdf; Confidentiality Order Compare.pdf


6 juin 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

AUCC/ACCC INTERROGATORIES TO ACCESS

Q. 14, 15, 16:
Access shall provide what it has, in the form it has it. If the list of 220,000 or more works alluded to in the associations’ reply does not exist, Access shall provide any document on which the claim made on the web site was based.

Q. 34, 35, 36, 38, 39: the objection is dismissed. The fact that information requested is in the possession of the other party is not in itself relevant. This is all the more true when, as is the case here, information may or may not be in the possession of someone else than the party itself. With respect to Q. 39, it is not the Board’s practice to require a party to provide information beyond the date on which a question is addressed, even if the information is highly relevant.

ACCESS INTERROGATORIES TO ACCC/AUCC

General comment: the volume of information Access requests is largely a result of the breadth of issues raised by the objectors. That being said, parties are reminded that the Board does not need all existing relevant information to set fair tariffs. The associations should provide a reasonable amount of relevant information, from a reasonable number of institutions, preferably identified with the concurrence of Access. The institutions will in turn be required to make reasonable inquiries from staff.

Q. 3/3: the objection is dismissed. Information concerning institutions that do not avail themselves of the interim tariff is relevant and shall be provided, subject to the general comment above. Institutions who resist providing information should be reminded of the Board’s powers pursuant to subsection 66.7(1) of the Copyright Act.

Q. 10/10, 49/50, 88/89, 103/104: the questions as reformulated shall be answered. The objectors made the issues relevant. Questions about the use of licensed databases are relevant to determine the extent to which institutions can credibly operate without the Access repertoire.

Q. 63/64, 64/65, 78/79, 79/80, 98/99, 99/100: since all Access wants to know is if these systems make copies and if so how, the questions shall be answered accordingly.

Q. 70/71, 80/81: given the reply of Access, the question shall be answered by identifying the platforms and by providing information concerning copies made for mobile devices operation and how they differ from non-mobile counterparts.

Q. 87/88, 125/126: the objection is dismissed, for the reasons given by Access.

Q. 121/122: the objection is dismissed.

Q. 129/130, 130/131: the question as reformulated shall be answered. Again, institutions are only required to make reasonable inquiries and to provide a reasonable amount of relevant information.

Q. 21/22, 22/23, 23/24, 25/26, 28/29, 31/32, 32/33, 36/37, 44/45, 47/48, 48/49, 50/51, 62/63, 65/66, 66/67, 67/68, 83/84, 84/85, 95/96, 96/97, 101/102, 111/112, 113/114, 114/115: AUCC, ACCC and their members are ordered to respond to the interrogatory.

Q. 38/39, 54/55, 55/56, 57/58, 59/60, 60/61, 72/73, 73/74, 74/75, 76/77, 85/86, 89/90: AUCC, ACCC and their members are ordered to respond to the interrogatory. If a contract specifies that information may only be disclosed with the consent of the contractor, AUCC and ACCC shall identify the existence of the contract and supply the names of the parties to the contract. Access will hold the interrogatory in abeyance until it can determine whether it considers that other contracts supplied in response to the interrogatory contain a representative sample of the information requested. If so, no further answer shall be required. If not, Access shall apply to the Board for directions.

Q. 53/54, 71/72, 81/82, 105/106, 106/107, 107/108, 108/109, 117/118, 119/120: the interrogatory shall be held in abeyance pending negotiation of a survey.


 

30 mai 2011

Parties are asked to reply to Access Copyright's request by no later than Friday, June 3, 2011.

Attachment: Letter to G. McDougall.pdf; 20110511172600.pdf


 

18 mai 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD
  
GENERAL COMMENT

In several instances, Access Copyright's questions to individuals, CAUT and CFS are relevant. Strictly speaking, they should be answered. However, the Board doubts the usefulness of ordering individuals, CAUT or CFS to disclose or seek from students or staff information that is either anecdotal or more easily available through the educational institution represented by ACCC or AUCC. That being said, if Professor Katz, CAUT or CFS do not respond to the questions which are subjected below to this general comment, they shall be precluded later on from leading evidence that would have been responsive to the relevant interrogatory unless the Board so allows.

CAUT/CFS QUESTIONS TO AUCC

Q4, Q5: The objection is dismissed. As mentioned in the reply of CAUT/CFS, academic freedom and privacy are squarely in issue in this proceeding.

CAUT/CFS QUESTIONS TO ACCESS

Q4, Q8: Access shall provide what it has, in the form it exists. The request in reply that Access demonstrate how new works join the repertoire and how that information is available to the public is premature unless a document that is responsive to the question exists. That being said, since the Board will expect Access to offer such demonstration and since early disclosure of such demonstration would undoubtedly assist objectors and intervenors in preparing their case, Access is asked to make reasonable efforts to offer such demonstration by the date set to respond to interrogatories.

PROFESSOR KATZ QUESTIONS TO ACCESS

Q1: Access shall provide what it has, in the form it exists. There is no need to address the legal issues raised in reply at this stage. Access need not explain what is missing from the databases or why, unless existing documents provide such explanation. If there is documentation linked to the databases, Access shall supply it.

Q5, Q12: Litigation privilege attaches only to documents acquired or created in contemplation of these proceedings. Access shall provide anything else, whether or not it may "disclose a significant aspect of" its case. Access is asked to make reasonable inquiries of its publisher members or affiliates and of other RROs.

Q6: Access is expected to provide what it has, in the form it exists. For the time being, it shall provide the description offered in its objection.

Q15: Access shall provide what it offered in its objection.

ACCESS QUESTIONS TO ALBERTA

General objection: The relevant test is whether Alberta is allowed to file evidence, not whether it intends to. Alberta shall forthwith inform Access and the Board whether it intends to answer interrogatories. If the answer is no, then Alberta shall be deemed to have abandoned its intervention. It will remain free to file comments on the proceedings, as the Directive on Procedure provides.

Q5, Q21: Subject to the ruling on the general objection, Alberta shall answer as per the reply of Access.

Q7: Alberta shall provide what it has, in the form it exists.

ACCESS QUESTIONS TO PROFESSOR KATZ

General objection with respect to the personal use patterns of Professor Katz: Subject to the general comment, the objection is dismissed.

General objection with respect to the copying of non-repertoire works: Subject to the general comment, the objection is dismissed, for the reasons offered in Access’ reply. Furthermore, what is or not in the repertoire of Access is a matter for the Board, not Professor Katz, to decide.

General objection with respect to substantial takings, definition of copy and definition of digital copy: Subject to the general comment, the objection is dismissed. Furthermore, these are matters for the Board, not Professor Katz, to decide.

General ruling with respect to the course management system(s) Professor Katz has used since January 1, 2008: Without regard to the general comment, Professor Katz shall provide what he has, in the form it exists.

Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6: Professor Katz shall provide what he has, in the form it exists.

Q7, Q10, Q13, Q16, Q18, Q21, Q34, Q40, Q41, Q42, Q45, Q49, Q54, Q55: Subject to the general comment, Professor Katz shall answer as per Access’ reply.

Q15: The question is relevant only to the extent that Professor Katz uses copy shops. If so, subject to the general comment, Professor Katz shall provide what he has, in the form it exists.

Q17, Q20, Q23, Q24, Q25, Q26, Q30, Q31, Q35, Q36, Q37, Q38, Q39: Subject to the general comment, Professor Katz shall provide what he has, in the form it exists.

Q32: Subject to the general comment, Professor Katz shall provide what he has, in the form it exists. The definition Access offers of a mobile device is acceptable.

ACCESS QUESTIONS TO CAUT/CFS

Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9 (CFS), Q9 (CAUT), Q10 (CFS), Q11 (CFS): The Associations shall answer as per Access' reply.

ALL OTHER QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO CAUT OR CFS

Subject to the general comment, the Associations shall answer as per Access' reply.


 

5 mai 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to review and comment the attached draft Order of the Board with respect to the treatment of confidential information (a clean version and a version tracking the changes are attached for convenience). Their attention is drawn to the following points.

1) The definition of "confidential information" provided by Access proposed an objective test. At this stage, the supplier’s belief ought to be sufficient.

2) The proposed order does not contemplate two categories of confidential information. Therefore, there is no need to include any reference to highly confidential information. Paragraph 15 of the order is sufficient for the time being.

3) References to information to be supplied as part of the parties’ case have been removed. Filing of confidential information into the record of the proceedings is to be addressed pursuant to the directive on procedure.

4) The proposed order would have required that confidential information be supplied only to external counsel, making it impossible for in-house counsel to act on behalf of a party. The Board does not see the need for this. In-house counsel are allowed to deal with confidential information as a matter of course. Compulsory resort to external counsel is necessary only with respect to highly confidential information, which is not contemplated in this order. On the other hand, it would appear that only external counsel should be allowed to retain confidential information in their files pursuant to paragraph 13 of the order.

5) Paragraph 10 has been adjusted to make it clear that confidentiality issues relating to information to be filed into the record of the proceedings must be addressed pursuant to the directive on procedure.

6) The order as worded does not make it possible to supply confidential information to unrepresented parties. At this stage, the Board is willing to proceed on the assumption that no claim to confidentiality will be made in respect of information to be supplied to such parties. It is up to those who have received interrogatories from unrepresented parties to confirm whether that assumption is correct and if not, whether confidentiality would be sufficiently preserved by asking an unrepresented party to execute a confidentiality agreement.
Parties shall provide their comments no later than on Friday, May 13, 2011. They may respond to comments made by others no later than on Friday, May 20, 2011.

Attachments: confidentiality order draft.pdf;confidentiality order draft - track changes.pdf


 

18 avril 2011

The parties' request for an extension to April 19, 2011 to file their replies to objections to interrogatories with respect to any remaining issues is granted.


 

7 avril 2011

Please note that the Reasons of the Board with respect to the amendments of the Interim Tariff in the above-referenced matter is now posted on the Board's website under the heading "What's New/Recent Decisions" (http://cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html), along with the amended Interim Tariff. 


 

6 avril 2011

The attached, March 31, 2011 application by the Government of Alberta (Alberta) to limit its participation to the above-referenced proceedings to receiving and commenting upon the information and arguments presented to the Board is denied. In an order dated November 25, 2010, the Board, in response to a similar application by the same person, stated that given the number of participants in these proceedings, it did not intend to treat some of them differently unless absolutely necessary. Alberta has offered no demonstration of this necessity. Furthermore, Alberta can achieve what it seeks even if it withdraws as intervenor: Access to the public record of the proceedings remains open to it and it will remain entitled to file comments in writing on any aspect of the proceedings. As a general rule, comments received later than the date by which participants must present or file oral or written arguments, will not be considered. In due course, the Board will forward these comments to participants.

The Board notes Alberta’s concerns over potential interactions between any confidentiality order the Board may issue on the one hand, and provincial and federal access to information and privacy legislation on the other, to the extent that such legislation may indeed apply to proceedings before the Board. Such concerns can be addressed if and as they arise.

Attachment: 11301 Letter to Gilles McDougall.pdf


 

1er avril 2011

Participants have until Wednesday, April 6, 2011 to provide comments with respect to the attached documents. Access Copyright can provide a reply by no later than Friday, April 8, 2011.

Attachments: Letter to G McDougall re Confidentiality Order.pdf; OTTAWA-#40277866-v1-Draft_Confidentiality_Order.PDF; OTTAWA-#40277842-v2-Draft_Confidentiality_Order.DOC


1er avril 2011

Granted.
[Extension request from Access Copyright]


1er avril 2011

The request is granted.
[Extension request from CFS and CAUT]


 

16 mars 2011

Further to the Board's notice of March 11, 2011, attached is the Directive on Procedure. We draw your attention on the following points:

a) The electronic version of the evidence (on CD, DVD or USB key) should be filed with the Board, along with the hard copies on the date set for that purpose. You must also ensure that other participants receive their hard copy and electronic version on the same day the documents are filed with the Board.

b) As a general rule, responses to interrogatories are NOT filed with the Board. Parties should only file as evidence those responses to interrogatories to which they know they intend to refer.

c) When filing documents with the Board, confidential and highly confidential information should be highlighted in yellow and blue, respectively. The cover page of the document should indicate whether it includes confidential or highly information.

Attachment: DIRECTIVE ON PROCEDURE-AC-POSTSEC.pdf


16 mars 2011

Please note that the Board's Reasons with respect to the interim decision (issued on December 23, 2010) on the above-referenced matter, are now posted on the Board's website under the heading "What's New/Recent Decisions" (http://cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html).

The Board's decision with respect to the requests for amendments to the Interim Tariff, for which parties' replies were received on February 11, 2011, will be issued at a later date.


 

11 mars 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board adopts the following schedule for interrogatories in the above-captioned file:

Exchange of interrogatories: no later than Monday, March 21, 2011

Exchange of objections to interrogatories: no later than Monday, April 4, 2011

Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, April 18, 2011

[Ruling of the Board]

Exchange of responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, June 13, 2011

Exchange of notices of the grounds with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses to interrogatories: no later than Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Filing, with the Board, of replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, August 22, 2011

[Ruling of the Board]

Filing of complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, October 3, 2011 

The remainder of the schedule leading to the hearing, that could or could not include a study of copying behaviour, will be set once participants have agreed on whether such study will be conducted.

The Directive on Procedure will follow shortly.


 

22 février 2011

The Board is of the preliminary view that the following, partial schedule proposed by Access Copyright and agreed upon by AUCC, ACCC and Mr. Sean Maguire, should be adopted for the above-captioned file. Participants have until Thursday, February 24, 2011 to indicate whether they agree with the schedule. Those who do not respond by the due date will be deemed to have agreed.

The remainder of the schedule leading to the hearing, that could or could not include a study of copying behaviour, will be set once the participants have agreed on whether such study will be conducted.

Proposed schedule for interrogatories

Exchange of interrogatories: no later than Monday, March 21, 2011

Exchange of objections to interrogatories: no later than Monday, April 4, 2011

Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, April 18, 2011

[Ruling of the Board]

Exchange of responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, June 13, 2011

Exchange of notices of the grounds with respect to unsatisfactory/incomplete responses to interrogatories: no later than Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Filing, with the Board, of replies to notices of the grounds with respect to any remaining issues: no later than Monday, August 22, 2011

[Ruling of the Board]

Filing of complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Monday, October 3, 2011


 

23 décembre 2010

Please note that the decision of the Board with respect to the above-referenced matter is now posted on the Board's website under the heading "What's New/Recent Decisions" (http://cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html), along with the Interim Tariff. 

In addition, a version of the Interim Tariff highlighting the differences with the AUCC's (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada) model licence is also posted on the Board's website. The text in red corresponds to additions and the strikeout text corresponds to deletions.


 

15 décembre 2010

In view of the circumstances, the Board grants Access Copyright's request.
[Extension request]


 

13 décembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board reminds participants that the deadlines for responding to questions 2), 3), and 4) set in the December 8 Board's ruling are not dependant upon the Board issuing a decision on question 1). Decisions on all questions will be issued in due course.


 

8 décembre 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

The December 6, 2010 request of Mr. Katz for a "temporary moratorium" is denied. AUCC’s application of the following day to extend the deadline for responding to the application for an interim decision is also denied.

Both applications proceed from a common misconception. The draft interim tariff is not a new proposal. The only proposal of which the Board is seized is the application filed on October 13, 2010. Access Copyright has not changed the relief requested; nor would the Board allow this to happen without giving other participants additional time to respond, unless the proposed change clearly favours users. The purpose of the Board’s requests for additional information, including the draft interim tariff and tables correlating that draft with the model licence, is not to help the Board understand the terms of the application or "to accommodate the inadequacy of Access Copyright’s material". It is to make it easier for other participants to understand the relationship between the proposed text of Access Copyright and its application for an interim decision. The Board could have left participants to respond to the application on the sole basis of the documents filed with it, which are sufficient for anyone to respond to the application and adequate for the purposes of making a decision.

The application of Mr. Katz for an oral hearing is also denied. The application relies on alleged complexities that cannot be assessed until the Board has read the submissions of all participants. In these matters, the Board’s practice is to hold oral hearings only if the panel seized of the matter finds it necessary to decide the issue. Participants will be informed of this if need be. If not, the matter will be addressed as usual, without a hearing.

The application of Mr. Katz raises a number of other issues that need not be addressed in this order. These matters will be dealt with in the Board’s reasons for its decision whether or not to issue an interim decision.

To help participants focus on relevant issues, the Board would like to remind them that, in order to deal with the application for an interim decision, the Board will have to address, at a minimum, four questions or sets of questions that logically flow from any such application.

1) Should the Board grant Access Copyright's application for an interim decision?

2) If the Board decides to issue an interim decision, which form should that decision take?

3) If the Board decides to issue an interim decision, what should the substantive content of the decision be? Access proposes maintaining what it refers to as the status quo, with additional, potential uses being allowed at no additional cost. Does the proposal achieve what it purports to achieve? Is that what the interim decision should indeed achieve? If not, what else?

4) Once the content or substance of the decision has been determined, does the proposed text reflect that substance or content and if not, how should it be modified?

AUCC’s alternative request is granted in part. Participants still have to file their submissions no later than on Friday, December 10, 2010, but only with respect to the application for an interim decision (question 1 above). Participants shall file their submissions on questions 2 to 4 above, or on any other issue, no later than on Friday, December 17, 2010.

Access shall reply no later than by noon (EST) on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 to the submissions filed on December 10 and no later than by noon (EST) on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 to the submissions filed on December 17.


 

7 décembre 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The attached letter from the Canadian Library Association has been received by the Board.

The comments of the Canadian Library Association with respect to the application for an interim tariff are noted.

The application by the Association for leave to intervene is denied. In its Notice dated November 15, 2010, the Board asked the Association to indicate its intentions with respect to its participation. The Association failed to respond to the Board's Notice. Given the number of participants, timely responses to Board's rulings are essential to maintain an orderly process.

Since some librarians have already been granted intervenor status, the Association cannot simply rely on the fact that it represents other librarians to establish that its participation would be helpful.

The Board will however consider a new application for intervenor status from the Association if a significant number of participants officially ask the Association to act on their behalf in these proceedings.

Attachment: CLA interim tariff letter to CB dec10 final.pdf


 

7 décembre 2010

Please note that in the Order below [See other December 6, 2010 entry below], which was just released, the first line of paragraph 1) should have read:

1) Access shall file, no later than by 5 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 (and not Wednesday, December 6, 2010):

We apologize for any inconvenience this might have created.


6 décembre 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Further to Access Copyright filing a draft interim tariff pursuant to the Board's notice of December 3, last, the Board further orders as follows.

1) Access shall file, no later than by 5 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 6, 2010:

    (a) a table indicating precisely the source for each provision of the proposed interim tariff. If any provision in the interim tariff is new, its purpose shall be explained.
   
    (b) a table correlating the model licence with the provisions of the proposed interim tariff. Where a provision of the licence is not in the interim tariff, an explanation shall be provided.

Any question Access may have in this regard should be directed to the Board's General Counsel.

2) Access shall also file at the same time any existing French version of the model licence or any other licence.


 

3 décembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board has received from Access Copyright the royalty rate information it requested in its order of November 26, 2010. Whether the application for an interim decision will be granted remains an open issue. However, if the application is granted, it is probable that the decision will take the form of a tariff, not a licence. For this reason, the Board would appreciate receiving forthwith from Access Copyright a draft interim tariff that reflects the terms of the model licences, with such modifications as necessary.


3 décembre 2010

RULING OF THE BOARD

The November 30, 2010, motion that Colleges Ontario be allowed to act as objector in these proceedings is denied. ACCC filed a timely objection as representative of certain institutions, including those Colleges Ontario now purports to represent. These institutions are not now entitled to split up from ACCC and continue to claim status as autonomous objectors, either individually or in groups. ACCC, not the institutions, is an objector in these proceedings.

Colleges Ontario remains free to apply for intervenor status in these proceedings. Given the number of participants, any application will need to state very clearly how its participation will be useful in this matter. The model directive on procedure provides more information on applications for intervenor status. It can be found at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/about-apropos/directive-e.html.

For reasons already explained in today's earlier Notice of the Board, the application of December 2, 2010 of Mr. Neufeldt on behalf of St. Mary's University College for a seven-week extension to the deadline to respond to Access Copyright's application for an interim tariff is denied.

3 décembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On Friday, November 26, 2010, participants were asked to respond no later than Monday, December 6, 2010 to the application of Access Copyright for an interim tariff.

On November 29, the Board was advised that ACCC had retained counsel with respect to the application for an interim decision. Counsel for ACCC asked a one week extension until Monday, December 13 to provide "meaningful written representations". That same day, AUCC informed the Board that it supported ACCC’s application and that it intended to co-ordinate its response to the application with ACCC. The following day, Access Copyright submitted that since both ACCC and AUCC had been provided with a copy of the application on or about October 13, 2010, the extension sought was unwarranted. Access Copyright did suggest a somewhat shorter extension, with a view to the Board receiving "meaningful written representations" that are coordinated as between the Objectors to the greatest extent possible, as proposed by AUCC.

The November 30, 2010 application by Mr. Katz that all participants be granted a period of at least 7 weeks to respond to the application is denied. Under the amended timelines, participants have two weeks to respond. This is not unreasonably short, when compared to the time allowed to deal with interim issues before other jurisdictions. The fact that two of the participants received early notice is not relevant. Access has now provided the precise amounts of royalties it believes should be inserted in an interim decision, as requested in the Board’s order of November 26, 2010. As a result, the issue raised by Mr. Katz in this respect is now moot. In any event, such a short delay in providing that information is not reason enough to postpone the examination of this matter. The relevant amounts can be derived from the documents already sent to all participants. The Board asked for that information out of an abundance of caution and to avoid unnecessary debates on the issue. Participants were therefore perfectly able to prepare their argument for or against an interim tariff even though they only got the information today. 

The November 30, application of Colleges Ontario will be addressed separately.

Participants have until Friday, December 10 to respond to the application for an interim tariff. Access Copyright may reply to these comments no later than Wednesday, December 15.


 

1er décembre 2010

Alberta will remain as intervenor with full participatory rights and obligations. A participant is always entitled to withdraw from a proceeding before the Board. The Board does not award costs.


 

26 novembre 2010

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On October 13, 2010, Access Copyright filed an application, dated October 7, for an interim tariff. The application and relevant documents are attached. Participants are asked to respond to the application (and to copy all other participants) no later than Monday, December 6, 2010. Access Copyright may reply to these comments no later than Monday, December 13, 2010. The response of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Students to the application is attached.

Access Copyright shall indicate forthwith the precise amounts that, in its view, are payable by the targeted institutions and ought to be included in section 14 of the model licence (or any other provision where such figures may be relevant) if the Board were to issue an interim decision as requested.

Attachment: Application for interim tariff.pdf; response to application.pdf


 

25 novembre 2010

[Le français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

In its Notice of November 15, 2010 (the "Notice"), the Board acknowledged as objectors the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Athabasca University and the British Columbia Association of Institutes and Universities.
The purpose of this Ruling is to identify those who may participate to the examination process of the above-referenced proposed tariff as intervenors with full participatory rights.

1) In its Notice, the Board stated that it was inclined to grant to certain persons intervenor status with full participatory rights, in effect allowing them to act in these proceedings as if they were objectors. No one is challenging the participation of these persons. These persons were informed of the rights and obligations of such intervenors and were asked to confirm whether they wished to remain as participants. The following persons, who provided the confirmation the Board requested, are granted status as intervenor with full participatory rights: Mr. Sean Hunt, Mr. Ariel Katz, Mr. Sean Maguire, Mr. Mark McCutcheon, Ms. Meera Nair, Ms. Nancy Pardoe, Mr. Jay Rahn, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS).

2) Alberta was one of the persons to whom the Board was inclined to grant intervenor status with full participatory rights. The province now asks that its participation be limited to receiving copy of evidence and arguments, filing a statement of case, calling witnesses and presenting oral or written arguments. Given the number of participants, the Board does not intend to treat some of them differently unless absolutely necessary. Alberta is asked to confirm by no later than Tuesday, November 30, 2010, whether it wishes to remain as intervenor with full participatory rights and obligations. If not, Alberta will not be granted intervenor status.

3) In its Notice, the Board expressed the preliminary opinion that the participation of certain persons would not be of assistance in these proceedings. These persons were invited to indicate the extent and nature of any association they may have with any post-secondary educational institution outside of the Province of Quebec targeted in the proposed tariff if they wished to be granted intervenor status in these proceedings. Only Mr. Pat Donovan and Mr. Jason Koblovsky responded to the Board’s Notice. Both failed to disclose any association with a targeted institution. Neither did they offer any evidence that they may be prospective users or reasons that would lead the Board to conclude that their participation may be of assistance. A mere statement that one is "covering" the public interest or that the proposed tariff’s terms are unfair are insufficient to establish a person’s status or to explain the contribution she may make. Consequently, these persons will not be granted intervenor status.

4) In its Notice, the Board asked three persons to clarify whom they intended to represent. Ms. Liz Fulton-Lyne stated that she intended to represent Yellowhead Tribal College, Mr. Sandy Ayer, Ambrose University College and Mr. Brad Neufeldt, St. Mary’s University College. All asked to remain as intervenors with full participatory rights. The Board grants their request.

5) As stated in the Notice, notices of objections filed by any person other than those to whom this Ruling grants intervenor status will be treated as letters of comment and will be made part of the official record of these proceedings. The Board members who will hear the matter will consider them before reaching their decision. These persons are still permitted to consult the public record and to comment in writing on any aspect of the proceedings until the date set for the filing of final arguments, as are all members of the public.

6) Anyone even remotely familiar with how the Board proceeds knows that as a matter of course, the Board treats all participants equally, be they collectives, objectors or intervenors: they enjoy the same rights and are required to comply with the same obligations. Indeed, in the few instances where the Board has treated an intervenor differently, it has been usually, if not always, at the request of the concerned intervenor.

In these proceedings, intervenors and objectors will be treated identically unless circumstances dictate otherwise and being identified as one or the other will be of no practical consequence. As a result, and as was stated in the Notice, it is not necessary to rule on whether persons who filed notices of objection and who are allowed to participate as intervenors are proper objectors. Furthermore, since all participants who complied with the Notice are in effect being granted everything they asked for, there is no need to either afford them the opportunity to further comment or for the Board to provide reasons for its ruling. The only possible exceptions are Messrs. Donovan and Koblovski. In their case, they were afforded an opportunity to explain why they should remain as participants, and the reasons why they are not being allowed to so remain are clearly outlined above.
____________________________________________________________

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Dans son avis du 15 novembre 2010 (l'« Avis »), la Commission reconnaissait le statut d'opposant à l'Association des universités et collèges du Canada, à l'Association des collèges communautaires du Canada, à Athabasca University et à la British Columbia Association of Institutes and Universities.

La présente décision a pour but d'identifier les personnes qui pourront participer au processus d'examen du projet de tarif mentionné en rubrique en tant qu'intervenants avec plein droit de participation.

1) Dans son Avis, la Commission disait tendre à accorder le statut d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation à certaines personnes, leur permettant ainsi d'agir dans la présente affaire comme si elles étaient des opposants. Personne ne remet en cause la participation de ces personnes. La Commission les a informées des droits et obligations de tels intervenants et leur a demandé de confirmer si elles désiraient ou non demeurer au dossier à titre de participant. Les personnes suivantes, qui ont fourni à la Commission la réponse demandée, auront le statut d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation : M. Sean Hunt, M. Ariel Katz, M. Sean Maguire, M. Mark McCutcheon, Mme Meera Nair, Mme Nancy Pardoe, M. Jay Rahn, l'Alliance canadienne des associations étudiantes, l'Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d'université (ACPPU) et la Fédération canadienne des étudiantes et étudiants (FCEE).

2) L'Alberta fait partie des personnes auxquelles la Commission disait tendre à accorder le statut d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation. La province demande que sa participation se limite à recevoir la preuve et l'argumentation, à déposer un énoncé de cause, à convoquer des témoins et à présenter une argumentation orale ou par écrit. Compte tenu du nombre de participants, la Commission n'entend pas accorder un traitement différent à certains d'entre eux sauf si c'est absolument nécessaire. Elle demande à l'Alberta de confirmer au plus tard le mardi 30 novembre 2010 si elle souhaite demeurer au dossier à titre d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation et obligations. Sinon, la Commission n'accordera pas le statut d'intervenant à l'Alberta.

3) Dans son Avis, la Commission disait tendre à conclure que la participation de certaines personnes ne serait pas utile en l'espèce. Elle les invitait à indiquer la portée et la nature de leurs liens avec une institution postsecondaire hors Québec visée par le projet de tarif si elles désiraient intervenir dans la présente affaire. Seuls MM. Pat Donovan et Jason Koblovsky ont donné suite à l'Avis. Ils n'ont pas indiqué quelque lien que ce soit avec une institution visée, pas plus qu'ils ont offert de preuve tendant à établir qu'ils étaient des utilisateurs éventuels ou des motifs permettant à la Commission de conclure que leur participation pourrait être utile. Le simple énoncé qu'on entend « couvrir » l'intérêt public ou que les modalités du projet tarif sont injustes ne suffit pas à établir le statut d'une personne ou à expliquer la contribution qu'elle pourrait apporter. Par conséquent, la Commission ne leur accordera pas le statut d'intervenant.

4) Dans son Avis, la Commission demandait à trois personnes de préciser les institutions pour le compte desquelles elles comptaient agir. Mme Liz Fulton-Lyne a dit représenter le Yellowhead Tribal College, M. Sandy Ayer, l'Ambrose University College et M. Brad Neufeldt, St. Mary's University College. Tous ont demandé le statut d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation. La Commission fait droit à leur demande.

5) Comme le prévoyait l'Avis, les avis d'opposition déposés par les personnes à qui la présente décision n'accorde pas le statut d'intervenant seront traités comme des lettres de commentaire, versées au dossier public de l'instance. Les commissaires qui entendront l'affaire en tiendront compte avant de rendre leur décision. Ces personnes conservent, comme tout autre membre du public, le droit de consulter le dossier public et de formuler des observations écrites sur l'un ou l'autre des aspects de la présente affaire jusqu'à la date fixée pour la présentation des plaidoiries finales.

6) Les personnes un tant soit peu informées de la façon dont la Commission procède savent qu'elle traite tous les participants sur le même pied, qu'il s'agisse de société de gestion, d'opposant ou d'intervenant : tous ont les mêmes droits et obligations. Bien plus, le peu de fois où la Commission a traité un intervenant différemment, ce fut habituellement, sinon toujours, à la demande de l'intéressé.

Dans la présente affaire, sauf par la force des choses, intervenants et opposants recevront un traitement identique et le fait d'être affublé de l'un ou l'autre titre n'aura aucun effet pratique. Par conséquent, comme le prévoyait l'Avis, il n'est pas nécessaire de décider si les personnes ayant déposé une opposition et autorisées à participer en tant qu'intervenants sont des opposants en règle. Qui plus est, puisque les participants qui se sont conformés à l'Avis obtiennent dans les faits tout ce qu'ils ont demandé, il n'est pas nécessaire de leur donner l'occasion de déposer d'autres commentaires ou pour la Commission de motiver sa décision, sauf peut-être en ce qui concerne MM. Donovan et Koblovski. Or, ils ont eu l'occasion d'expliquer pourquoi ils devraient pouvoir participer à l'affaire et les motifs pour lesquels ce statut leur est refusé sont clairement énoncés ailleurs dans la présente décision.


 

15 novembre 2010

[Le français suit l'anglais]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On September 22, 2010, after having examined notices of objection filed in this matter, Access Copyright agreed that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC) qualify as objectors in these proceedings. It argued that Athabasca University and the British Columbia Association of Institutes and Universities (BCAIU) were duplicating the representations of AUCC and ACCC and should not be qualified as objectors. Finally, it requested that all other persons who filed notices of objection not be given objector status by reason that since they are not targeted by the proposed tariff, they are not "prospective users" within the meaning of subsection 67.1(5) of the Copyright Act.

The Board finds that AUCC, ACCC and, setting aside for the moment the issue of duplicative representation, Athabasca University and BCAIU, being targeted by the proposed tariff, are proper objectors. Having read all the notices, the Board is also of the preliminary opinion that the participation of the government of Alberta and of teachers, students and staff from the targeted institutions in the proposed tariff would enrich the record of these proceedings and assist the Board's deliberations. As such, the Board is inclined to grant them, if they so wish, intervenor status with full participatory rights, in effect allowing them to act in these proceedings as if they were objectors. To the extent that the contemplated status is granted, it is not necessary to rule on whether these persons are proper objectors.

Access Copyright, AUCC, ACCC, Athabaska University and BCAIU may make their views known on the participation of the potential intervenors no later than Tuesday, November 23, 2010. They are asked not to deal with issues of duplicative representation or overlapping argumentation at this stage. These matters will be addressed later, when the intentions of all participants are more fully ascertained.

Intentions of Participants

Potential intervenors who filed a notice of objection only to ensure that their point of view would be taken into account may find it unnecessary to be further involved in these proceedings. The Board will treat their notices as letters of comment. As such, they are part of the official record of these proceedings. Access Copyright has received a copy of them. The Board members who will hear the matter will consider them before reaching their decision. Those persons are still permitted to consult the public record and to comment in writing on any aspect of the proceedings until the date set for the filing of final arguments.

Those who wish to remain as intervenors with full participatory rights will be treated as any objector. They will be entitled to receive a copy of all the evidence and arguments to be filed by all participants. They will also be entitled to address questions to other participants (in the form of interrogatories) and will be required to answer questions addressed to them, as long as they are relevant. They will have to file a statement of case, and will be entitled to call witnesses, file evidence and present oral argument at the end of the hearings.

All participants will be required to comply with the timetable that will be set for these proceedings and with the directive on procedure that will be issued in due course. A model directive is available on the Board's website at the following address: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/about-apropos/directive-e.html.

Those who wish to remain as participants in these proceedings are asked to inform the Board no later than Tuesday, November 23, 2010.

Request for information

The following institutions have sent notices of objection on behalf of both a post-secondary institution and its library. The Board needs to obtain, by no later than Tuesday, November 23, 2010, clarification and confirmation as to which one of the two is being represented.

Ambrose University College and the Library
St. Mary's University College and the Library
Yellowhead Tribal College and the Library 

Possible Exclusions

The Board is of the preliminary opinion that the participation of the following persons would not be of assistance:

Aburto, Juan
Akrigg, Mark
Bannerman, Sara
Bouchard, Paul
Caswell, James
Cooper, Alan
Creighton, Angus
de Alwis, Brian
Donovan, Pat
Finney, Nik
Gilbert, David
Guy, David
Harris, Sandy
Heesen, Erika
Humphries, Graeme
Kittredge, Rob
Koblovsky, Jason
Konefal, Tomasz
Lam, David
Lavender, Graham
Liota, Cohen
McMullen, Greg
Mitchell, Pauline
Neufeld, Ryan
Neufeld, Jacqueline
Pitt, Richard
Raby, Olier
Schigas, Marnie
Schigas, Roland
Schopf Loach, Cassandra
Scott, Steven
Solman, Grayden
Stevenson, Adrienne
Thompson, Kyle
Vu, Tom
Wall, Darren
Watt, Seth
Weber, Stephen Paul

Persons named above who wish to be granted intervenor status in these proceedings are asked to indicate the extent and nature of any association they may have with any post-secondary educational institution outside of the Province of Quebec targeted in the proposed tariff, also no later than Tuesday, November 23, 2010. The Board will then rule on these applications after giving other participants in these proceedings the opportunity to comment on the applications. Notices of objections filed by persons who are not granted intervenor status will be treated as letters of comment and will be made part of the official record of these proceedings.

Finally, Mr. Degen's letter in support of the proposed tariff will be treated as a letter of comment.

Application to Bifurcate Hearings

In their joint notice of objection, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) requested that the examination of the proposed tariff be bifurcated into a legal phase and an evidentiary phase. CAUT and CFS challenge the validity of certain definitions as well as the right of Access to impose certain terms and conditions or to prevent certain uses. They contend the proposed tariff targets unprotected uses and ignores certain exceptions or users' rights. They do not specify which questions, in their opinion, would justify splitting the process leading to the certification of a tariff.

The application is premature at best. Furthermore, based on the information currently available it is highly doubtful that splitting the examination of the legal questions from the substance of the tariff makes sense in this instance. Some of the issues raised by CAUT and CFS will require not, as they suggest, a minimal evidentiary record, but extensive evidence, most of which will in all likelihood also be relevant to the determination of the amount of the tariff. Finally, many of the issues raised deal with the terms and conditions of the tariff. Nothing will be gained by dealing with those issues before having some idea of how the core of the tariff will be structured.

For the time being, the application is denied. These matters can be revisited, if needed, in due course.

_______________________________________________________________

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le 22 septembre 2010, après avoir examiné les avis d'opposition déposés en l'instance, Access Copyright convenait que l'Association des universités et collèges du Canada (AUCC) et l'Association des collèges communautaires du Canada (ACCC) se qualifient comme opposantes dans la présente affaire. Elle demandait qu'on refuse ce statut à Athabasca University et à la British Columbia Association of Institutes and Universities (BCAIU) parce qu'il en découlerait un dédoublement de représentation. Finalement, elle a demandé de refuser le statut d'opposante à toutes les autres personnes ayant déposé un avis d'opposition au motif qu'elles ne sont pas visées par le projet de tarif et donc, pas des « utilisateurs éventuels » au sens du paragraphe 67.1(5) de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur.

La Commission conclut que AUCC, ACCC et, laissant de côté pour l'instant la question du dédoublement de représentation, Athabasca University et la BCAIU sont des opposantes puisqu'elles sont ciblées par le projet de tarif. Après avoir lu tous les avis, la Commission a aussi tendance à conclure que la participation du gouvernement de l'Alberta ainsi que des enseignants, des étudiants et du personnel des institutions ciblées dans le projet constituerait une addition utile au dossier de l'instance et éclairerait les délibérations de la Commission. Elle est donc portée à leur accorder, s'ils le désirent, le statut d'intervenant avec plein droit de participation, leur permettant ainsi d'agir dans la présente affaire comme si elles étaient des opposantes. Dans la mesure où ce statut leur serait accordé, il ne serait pas nécessaire de trancher sur leur statut d'opposantes.

Access Copyright, l'AUCC, l'ACCC, Athabasca University et la BCAIU peuvent faire valoir leur point de vue sur la question de la participation des intervenants potentiels, au plus tard le mardi 23 novembre 2010. Elles s'abstiendront de traiter du dédoublement de représentation ou du chevauchement de l'argumentation. Ces questions seront abordées plus tard, lorsque les intentions de tous seront mieux connues.

Intentions des participants

Les intervenants potentiels qui ont envoyé un avis d'opposition uniquement dans le but de s'assurer que leur point de vue soit pris en compte pourraient conclure qu'ils n'ont pas à s'impliquer davantage dans le reste de la présente instance. La Commission traitera leur avis comme une lettre de commentaire, versée au dossier public de l'instance. Access Copyright en a reçu copie. Les commissaires qui entendront l'affaire en tiendront compte avant de rendre leur décision. Ces personnes conserveront le droit de consulter le dossier public et de formuler des observations écrites sur l'un ou l'autre des aspects de la présente affaire jusqu'à la date fixée pour la présentation des plaidoiries finales.

Les personnes qui désirent demeurer à titre d’intervenant avec plein droit de participation seront traitées comme des opposantes. Elles auront droit de recevoir copie de la preuve et de l'argumentation de chacun des participants. Elles auront aussi l'occasion de poser aux autres participants des questions écrites (demandes de renseignements) et devront répondre aux questions qui leur seront adressées, pour autant qu'elles soient pertinentes. Elles devront également déposer un énoncé de cause, et pourront appeler des témoins, déposer de la preuve et présenter une plaidoirie orale à la fin des audiences.

Tous les participants seront tenus de se conformer à l'échéancier qui sera établi dans la présente affaire et à la directive sur la procédure que la Commission émettra en temps opportun. Une directive modèle est disponible sur le site de la Commission à l'adresse suivante : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/about-apropos/directive-f.html.

Les personnes souhaitant demeurer à titre de participant en l'instance doivent en informer la Commission au plus tard le mardi 23 novembre 2010.

Demande d'information

Les avis d'opposition suivants ont été envoyés à la fois au nom d’une institution postsecondaire et de sa bibliothèque. La Commission désire savoir, au plus tard le mardi 23 novembre 2010, laquelle de ces deux institutions est représentée, et en recevoir une confirmation.

Ambrose University College and the Library
St. Mary’s University College and the Library
Yellowhead Tribal College and the Library

Exclusions possibles

La Commission tend à conclure que la participation des personnes suivantes ne serait pas utile :

Aburto, Juan
Akrigg,Mark
Bannerman, Sara
Bouchard, Paul
Caswell, James
Cooper, Alan
Creighton, Angus
de Alwis, Brian
Donovan, Pat
Finney, Nik
Gilbert, David
Guy, David
Harris, Sandy
Heesen, Erika
Humphries, Graeme
Kittredge, Rob
Koblovsky, Jason
Konefal, Tomasz
Lam, David
Lavender, Graham
Liota, Cohen
McMullen, Greg
Mitchell, Pauline
Neufeld, Ryan
Neufeld, Jacqueline
Pitt, Richard
Raby, Olier
Schigas, Marnie
Schigas, Roland
Schopf Loach, Cassandra
Scott, Steven
Solman, Grayden
Stevenson, Adrienne
Thompson, Kyle
Vu, Tom
Wall, Darren
Watt, Seth
Weber, Stephen Paul

La personne susnommée qui désire intervenir dans la présente affaire doit indiquer la portée et la nature de ses liens avec une institution postsecondaire hors Québec visée par le projet de tarif, également au plus tard le mardi 23 novembre 2010. La Commission décidera par la suite de ces demandes, après avoir donné aux autres participants l'occasion de les commenter. Les avis d'oppositions de personnes n'ayant pas obtenu le statut d'intervenant seront traités comme des lettres de commentaire et versés au dossier public de l'instance.

Enfin, la lettre de M. Degen qui soutient le projet de tarif sera traitée comme une lettre de commentaire.

Demande de scission de l'audience

Dans leur avis d'opposition conjoint, l'Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d’université (ACPU) et la Fédération canadienne des étudiants (FCÉ) demandent que la Commission procède à l'examen des questions de droit que soulève le projet de tarif avant de traiter du fond. Ces opposantes doutent du fondement de certaines définitions et du droit d'Access d’imposer certaines modalités ou d'empêcher certaines utilisations. Elles soutiennent que le projet de tarif vise des utilisations protégées et ne tient pas compte de certaines exceptions et droits des utilisateurs. Elles ne précisent pas les questions qui, selon elles, justifieraient de scinder le processus menant à l'homologation du tarif.

Au mieux, la demande est prématurée. Qui plus est, compte tenu des renseignements disponibles à ce stade du processus, il est fort peu probable qu'il soit utile de scinder l'examen du droit et du fond dans la présente affaire. L'ACPU et la FCÉ soutiennent qu'on peut trancher les questions qu'elles soulèvent avec fort peu de preuve; la Commission croit au contraire que la preuve nécessaire sera abondante et, sans doute, en grande partie pertinente à l'établissement du montant du tarif. Enfin, plusieurs des questions soulevées portent sur les modalités du tarif; il ne sert à rien d'en traiter avant de comprendre davantage le montage du fond du tarif.

La demande est rejetée pour l'instant. On pourra aborder la question à nouveau en temps et lieu, si nécessaire.



Access Copyright - Tarif pour les écoles élémentaires et secondaires (2016-2019)


 

8 mai 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-026]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le projet de tarif des redevances à percevoir par Access Copyright pour la reproduction par reprographie, au Canada, d’œuvres de son répertoire par les établissements d’enseignement (2016-2019) sera publié dans la Gazette du Canada, le 9 mai 2015. Le projet de tarif est maintenant affiché sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer au projet de tarif est le mercredi 8 juillet 2015.



Access Copyright - Tarif pour les écoles élémentaires et secondaires (2010-2012, 2013-2015)


 

14 mars 2017up arrow

[CB-CDA 2017-015]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The deadline to file comments on the proposed process for reconsideration (see Notice of the Board CB-CDA 2017-13) in the above-mentioned file is extended to Monday, April 3, 2017.


 

13 mars 2017up arrow

[CB-CDA 2017-014]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Access may reply to the request below by tomorrow, Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 5:00 p.m.


From: Aidan O'Neill
Sent: March-13-17 5:45 PM
To: G. McDougall
Cc: W. Noel; A. Thomas; J. Zagar; C. Gillis; N. Campanella
Subject: Access Copyright (Elementary and Secondary Schools) 2010-2015 - Reconsideration [CB-CDA 2017-013]

Dear Gilles,

I am writing to the Board on behalf of the Objectors in relation to the attached Notice dated March 6, 2017 in the tariff proceeding under reference.

As the Board may be aware, the statutory deadline set out in section 58(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act for the filing of an application for leave to appeal with respect to a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is "sixty days after the date of the judgment appealed from". This means that any application for leave to appeal any legal issue dealt with by the Federal Court of Appeal in its January 27, 2017 decision must be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court by either Access Copyright or the Objectors by no later than Tuesday, March 28.

Because any decision by either Access Copyright or the Objectors to file such a leave application with the Supreme Court pursuant to section 58(1)(a) would undoubtedly have an impact on the submissions that the Objectors would file with the Board further to its Notice, the Objectors would request that the filing deadline of March 20 set out in the Notice be extended to Monday, April 3, 2017.

By this date, both Access Copyright and the Objectors will be in a position to comment on the Board's proposed procedures to deal with the impact of the coding errors on Access Copyright's repertoire with a full understanding as to what lies ahead of them in terms of a possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

This knowledge would likely enable them to provide their comments with a greater degree of clarity and commitment than would be the case if they were required to make their submissions before the March 28 statutory deadline had been reached. Moreover, in the event any such leave application is brought, the parties may be of the view that any reconsideration by the Board of the evidentiary issue of the coding errors be postponed sine die until the subject of such a leave application is ultimately addressed by the Supreme Court.

Please let me know if the Board has any questions relating to this request. Thank you.

Aidan


 

6 mars 2017up arrow

[CB-CDA 2017-013]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint l’avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-013] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

Attachment: NOT-2017-03-06-CB-CDA 2017-013.pdf


 

19 février 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-018]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d’auteur du Canada vient de rendre sa décision portant sur le tarif des redevances à percevoir par Access Copyright pour la reproduction par reprographie, au Canada, d’œuvres de son répertoire par les écoles élémentaires et secondaires pour les années 2010-2015. Les motifs, le tarif homologué ainsi qu’un communiqué de presse et un feuillet d’information sont affichés sur le site web de la Commission (www.cb-cda.gc.ca) sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Décisions récentes ».


 

3 février 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-009]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board wishes to consult the parties on the following matter in respect of the tariff wording.

The definition of “Ministry” found in the tariff certified by the Board on January 19, 2013 in the Redetermination of the Access Copyright Elementary and Secondary School Tariff, 2005-2009 is as follows, in both languages:

“ministry” means Alberta Education; the British Columbia Ministry of Education; Manitoba Education, Citizenship & Youth; the New Brunswick Department of Education; the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education; the Northwest Territories Department of Education, Culture and Employment; the Nova Scotia Department of Education; the Nunavut Department of Education; the Ontario Ministry of Education; the Prince Edward Island Department of Education; the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education; the Yukon Department of Education; or any successor or substituted ministry resulting from a reorganization of the government of a province or territory. (« ministère »)

« ministère » Alberta Education; le British Columbia Ministry of Education; Éducation, Citoyenneté et Jeunesse Manitoba; le ministère de l’Éducation du Nouveau-Brunswick; le Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education; le ministère de l’Éducation, de la Culture et de la Formation des Territoires du Nord-Ouest; le Nova Scotia Department of Education; le ministère de l’Éducation du Nunavut; le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario; le Prince Edward Island Department of Education; le Saskatchewan Ministry of Education; le ministère de l’Éducation du Yukon, ou tout ministère qui succède à l’un de ces ministères ou le remplace par suite d’un remaniement au sein du gouvernement de la province ou du territoire. (“ministry”)

Is this the correct definition for the Board to use in the upcoming certification of the tariff in the above-noted matter? If not, parties are asked to provide an agreed upon definition no later than Thursday, February 4, 2016.


 

15 décembre 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-083]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2015 SCC 57 issued on November 26, 2015, enunciated that the following principles needed to be taken into account by the Board when fixing licence fees:

  1. Technological neutrality; and,
  2. Balance between user and right-holder rights, with relevant factors to include the risks taken by the user, the extent of the investment made by the user in the new technology, and the nature of the copyright protected work’s use in the new technology.

The Board is of the preliminary opinion that these principles set by the SCC do not impact on the above-noted matter, and do not justify additional submissions by the parties on this issue.

Parties are asked to provide comments on the Board’s preliminary opinion no later than Friday, January 8, 2016. Parties will be allowed to reply to each other no later than Friday, January 15, 2016.


 

29 août 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-050]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board has the following questions with respect to some aspects of the tariff wording in the above-mentioned file:

1) Can the Board use as a tariff-drafting basis the tariff proposed by Access for the years 2013 to 2015?

2) Is the Board right in assuming that the definitions of “Choral Work”, “Grand Right Work”, “Musical Work” and “Orchestral or Band Work” are only included in the proposed tariff because it targets sheet music? If not, please explain why these definitions are relevant.

3) Given that consumables have been considered in the volume of compensable copies and may be copied under the tariff, it appears that section 4(1)(d) should be removed. Please confirm or otherwise explain why it should not be removed.

Access and the Objectors can provide responses to these questions no later than Friday, September 4, 2015 and replies no later than Friday, September 11, 2015.


 

19 décembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On June 6, 2014, the Board issued a Notice to the parties seeking answers to five Technical Questions. Access Copyright and the Objectors filed their respective answers to Technical Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 on October 14, 2014, and their respective responses to the other party’s submissions on December 5, 2014. On December 12, 2014, Access Copyright applied to the Board for leave to file a reply to certain submissions filed by the Objectors on December 5, 2014, and filed at the same time the reply submissions. On December 16, 2014, the Objectors filed a response to Access Copyright’s application.

Access Copyright alleges that the Objectors’ submissions ignored or mischaracterized the evidence presented in these proceedings. This allegation is strictly related to the review and analysis of the evidence currently before the Board. The Board will itself review and weigh the evidence in its deliberation. Access Copyright’s reply submissions are therefore unnecessary.

In addition, the Board agrees with the Objectors that the manner in which Access Copyright has combined its application for leave to file a reply and the reply itself is improper.

For the above reasons, Access Copyright request is denied.


 

27 novembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors’ request described below, with the consent of Access Copyright, is granted.

From: Aidan O'Neill
Sent: November-27-14 1:23 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Wanda Noel; Ariel Thomas; Erin Finlay; Arthur Renaud; C. Gillis; Levac, Roch: CB-CDA
Subject: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015) - Schedule re Technical Questions

Dear Gilles,

The Objectors have informed Erin Finlay at Access Copyright that their survey experts are unfortunately unable to complete their responses to Access Copyright’s October 14, 2014 submissions with respect to Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 by the November 28, 2014 deadline, or provide their answer to Question 2 by the December 1, 2014 deadline. In this regard, Ms. Finlay, on behalf of Access Copyright, has kindly consented to the Objectors’ request to the Board that the current schedule for the filing of responses – as originally established by the Board’s Notice of July 10, 2014 (below) – be revised as follows:

Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Friday, December 5, 2014.

Question 2

The parties shall answer the question by no later than Friday, December 5, 2014.

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Friday, December 19, 2014.

The Objectors recognize that there have already been several requests to the Board for revisions to the schedule for the parties to respond to the technical questions set out in the Board’s Notice of June 6, 2014. In this regard, the Objectors fully expect that this will be the final request that they make with respect to this schedule. In this context, the Objectors would like to thank Ms. Finlay for having provided her consent to this request to the Board.

If the Board has any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Wanda Noel. Finally, the Objectors would like to express their appreciation to the Board for its willingness to consider this request.

Aidan


 

7 novembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The parties’ request described below is granted.

From: Aidan O'Neill
Sent: November-07-14 12:00 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Wanda Noel; Ariel Thomas; Jordan Snel; Erin Finlay; Art Renaud; Claire Gillis
Subject: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015) -- Notice of the Board dated September 26, 2014

Dear Gilles,

Further to the Board’s Notice of September 26, 2014, the Objectors and Access Copyright request that the November 10, 2014 deadline for the filing of the parties’ respective responses to the others’ submissions of October 14, 2014 in relation to the Board’s Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 be temporarily suspended. In this regard, the parties are currently working together to resolve certain issues arising from their submissions of October 14. Until these issues are resolved, they are not in a position to file their responses with the Board on November 10. The parties undertake, however, to provide the Board with a proposed new deadline for the filing of their responses by no later than Wednesday, November 12, 2014.

If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Erin Finlay at Access Copyright.

Aidan


 

13 novembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors’ request described below, with the consent of Access Copyright, is granted.

From: Aidan O'Neill
Sent: November-12-14 4:23 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: wanda noel; Ariel Thomas; jordan snel; efinlay; arenaud; cgillis; Levac, Roch: CB-CDA
Subject: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015) -- Notice of the Board dated November 7, 2014

Dear Gilles,

Further to the Board’s Notice below, the Objectors propose that the Board require that the parties respond to the others’ submissions of October 14, 2014 in relation to Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 by no later than Friday, November 28, 2014. Access Copyright has consented to this proposed new deadline for the filing of these responses. If the Board has any questions about this matter, please let us know. Thank you.

Aidan


 

7 novembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors may provide comments on the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) referred to below by no later than Friday, November 14, 2014.

Attachment: 2014-10-28 Ltr CBC G. McDougall Oct.28, 2014.pdf


 

22 octobre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors’ request described below, with the consent of Access Copyright, is granted.

From: Aidan O'Neill
Sent: October-21-14 5:29 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Art Renaud; Claire Gillis; 'wanda.noel@bell.net'; Ariel Thomas; 'Jordan Snel'; Erin Finlay; Choquette, Maryse: CB-CDA
Subject: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015) -- Question 2

Dear Gilles,

The Objectors have been advised by Drs. Wilk and Whitehead that they will require a two week extension from the current Friday, November 14 deadline to Monday, December 1 for the filing of their response to Question 2 of the Board’s technical questions listed in its Notice of June 6, 2014. This would also require an extension of the current deadline for the filing of the reply submissions – for both the Objectors and Access Copyright – from Friday, November 28 to Monday, December 15.

In this regard, further to my request, Erin Finlay has kindly consented to the extension of these two dates on behalf of Access Copyright. As such, the Objectors would ask that the Board modify the schedule set out in its Ruling of July 10, 2014 (below) to read as follows:

Question 2

The parties shall answer the question by no later than Monday, December 1, 2014.

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Monday, December 15, 2014.

The Objectors would be grateful if the Board could give this request its consideration. If, of course, the Board requires any information relating to the need for an extension to these two filing dates, please let me know and I would be pleased to respond. Thank you very much.

Aidan


 

26 septembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The request of Access Copyright described below, with the consent of the Objectors, is granted.

De : Erin Finlay
Envoyé : Thursday, September 25, 2014 04:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA; Choquette, Maryse: CB-CDA
Cc : Art Renaud; Claire Gillis; Wanda Noel; Aidan O'Neill; A. Thomas; Jordan Snel
Objet : RE: File: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015)

Dear Mr. McDougall,

Access Copyright respectfully requests an extension of time to the schedule set out below to answer the Board’s technical questions 1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. O’Neill has consented to this extension on behalf of the Objectors. We request the following extension:

Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5

Access Copyright and the Objectors will answer these questions by no later than Tuesday, October 14, 2014.

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Monday, November 10, 2014.

The schedule for answering Question 2 would stay the same.

Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact either Art Renaud or me at your convenience.

Erin Finlay

From: Maryse Choquette
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:43 PM
To: Erin Finlay; Art Renaud; Claire Gillis; Nancy Brooks; Wanda Noel; Jordan Snell
Cc: Gilles McDougall
Subject: File: Access Copyright - Elementary and Secondary Schools Tariff (2010-2012 and 2013-2015)

RULING OF THE BOARD

The schedule for providing responses to the Board’s technical questions will be as follows:

Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5

Access Copyright and the Objectors will answer these questions by no later than Monday, September 29, 2014.

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Monday October 27, 2014.

Question 2

The parties shall answer the question by no later than Friday, November 14, 2014.

The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Friday, November 28, 2014.

Maryse Choquette


 

19 septembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

There is a substantial discrepancy between the number of compensable exposures claimed by Access Copyright and by the Objectors in the above-mentioned file. Access claims that about 340 million exposures are compensable in the first tariff period and that about 333 million exposures are compensable in the second tariff period. The Objectors claim that about 30 million exposures are compensable in the first tariff period and that about 25 million exposures are compensable in the second tariff period.

As a result of this discrepancy, the Board seeks some of the data from the Volume Study. The figures in Exhibit Objectors-10 show a “roadmap” for getting from the approximately 366,000 transactions measured in the Volume Study to the about 9,000 transactions that require a compensability analysis.

Both parties are asked to provide new versions of Figures 1 and 2 from Exhibit Objectors-10.

These versions are to take into account the following considerations.

  1. Header records are to be removed, using the definition of header record, rectype = 1.
  2. Copies made at ministries of education are to be removed.
  3. Copies made at scholi boards are not to be removed.
  4. Reproducibles are to be removed.
  5. Copies not analyzed by Access are to be removed.
  6. Copies of unknown genre are to be removed.

Prior to filing these versions of Figures 1 and 2, the parties are to exchange their versions with each other and attempt to reconcile any differences with one another.

When filing their versions with the Board, each party is to provide an explanation of why their version differs from the version being filed by the other party.

The Board sets the following timetable for these filings:

The parties are to exchange their versions of Figures 1 and 2 no later than Friday October 3, 2014.

The parties are to file their versions and explanations with the Board no later than Friday, October 17, 2014.


 

18 septembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors have proposed a transactional tariff, as detailed in Column 2 of the table below. The prices they proposed are markedly lower than the prices charged by Access for a transactional licence to copy the same types of materials, as shown in Column 3 of the table.

Table: Transactional Prices

All prices in pennies
Books 11 25
Newspapers 2 8
Periodicals 1 18
Consumables 5 n/a
Sheet Music 30 n/a

(a) Please discuss the general relationship between per-page rates used in a blanket-licence tariff calculated using a value-times-volume model and per-page rates used in a transactional tariff.

(b) Please explain why the rates proposed by the Objectors are lower than those typically charged by Access.

The Objectors are to provide their submissions to the Board’s questions above no later than Friday, September 26, 2014. Access may respond no later than Friday, October 10, 2014.


 

16 septembre 2014up arrow

REVISED NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is to provide its submissions to the Board’s September 12, 2014 questions attached by no later than Friday, September 26, 2014.

The Objectors may respond no later than Friday, October 10, 2014.

Attachment: 2014-09-12 – Questions to Access – Access Copyright K-12.pdf


 

12 septembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached are the “Questions of the Board to Access Copyright” distributed during the September 12, 2014 hearing in respect of the above-mentioned matter.

Attachment: 2014-09-12 – Questions to Access – Access Copyright K-12.pdf


 

12 août 2014up arrow

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Veuillez noter que l’audience (Plaidoiries) dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique reprendra le vendredi 12 septembre 2014 @ 9h00

De plus, veuillez informer le greffe, au plus tard le jeudi 4 septembre 2014, si vous avez besoin des items suivants :

- Interprètes/traduction simultanée;
- Équipement (projecteur, écran, tableau, etc ...);
- Besoins spéciaux/autres questions.

Si vous comptez déposer des informations additionnelles lors de l'audience, veuillez en fournir 8 copies pour la Commission (1 copie caviardée et 7 copies confidentielles) et suffisamment de copies pour les autres parties. Une copie électronique des pièces supplémentaires sera également nécessaire.

Bien à vous,


 

10 juillet 2014up arrow

RULING OF THE BOARD

The schedule for providing responses to the Board’s technical questions will be as follows:

Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5

    Access Copyright and the Objectors will answer these questions by no later than     Monday, September 29, 2014.

    The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Monday October     27, 2014.

Question 2

    The parties shall answer the question by no later than Friday, November 14, 2014.

    The parties shall respond to the others’ submissions by no later than Friday, November     28, 2014.


 

9 juillet 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board intends to set the schedule for providing responses to the technical questions as proposed by the objectors (and attached, for convenience) unless Access Copyright provides a compelling reply no later than Thursday, July 10, 2014.

Attachment: Letter to the Board re Technical Questions – July 9, 2014.pdf


 

7 juillet 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to provide a reply to each other’s proposal (attached for convenience) on the time required to answer the technical questions by no later than Wednesday, July 9, 2014.

Attachment: 87) Email from C. Gillis (2014-07-04).pdf; 88) Email from A. O’Neill (2014-07-04).pdf


 

3 juillet 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed a Ruling of the board in the above-referenced matter.

Attachment: 2014-07-02 – Ruling and Question from the Board – Access Copyright K-12.pdf


 

13 juin, 2014up arrow

RULING OF THE BOARD

On June 11, 2014, Drs. Paul Whitehead and Piotr Wilk, experts for the Objectors, addressed the attached question to the Director of Research in accordance with the Board’s Notice of June 6, 2014, also attached (for convenience). The question goes beyond the scope of technical questions insofar as it asks the Board to make a finding with respect to the type of analysis the parties should use to answer its questions.

Accordingly, the Board wishes to address the following question to the parties:

Please indicate the data set or sets that should be used to answer the Board’s technical questions of June 6. In particular, please consider whether the transactions “not analyzed by Access Copyright” from the 2005-2006 Volume Study should be analyzed for the purpose of answering the technical questions.

Parties may submit their responses no later than Friday, June 20, 2014 and their replies no later than Friday, June 27, 2014.

The deadline for indicating how much time parties would need to answer the technical questions is suspended. The Board will issue further directions following these submissions.

Attachment: 2014-06-05 – Notice of the Board and Questions from the Board – Access Copyright K-12.pdf


 

6 juin 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed a Notice in regards to the Final Arguments along with Questions from the Board in the above-referenced matter.

Attachment: 2014-06-05 – Notice of the Board and Questions from the Board – Access Copyright K-12.pdf


 

11 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors' request described below is granted. The schedule of proceedings is revised accordingly:

Filing of Objectors' Case: no later than Wednesday, March 19, 2014;

Filing of Access' Reply: no later than Wednesday, April 16, 2014.


 

18 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

Interrogatory 46

Prince Rupert School District #52: The Board already ruled on the issue of access to the hard drives of photocopiers in its rulings of May 2 and August 29, 2013. Access' motion of September 11, 2013 is dismissed. The Objectors have answered the question.


 

12 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As per the August 29, 2013 Ruling, Access has not filed any correspondence demonstrating that the additional information from responses to interrogatories not received so far would be distinguishable from what has already been received. Consequently, the Objectors shall not provide responses to interrogatories for which no responses have been provided so far. The Objectors are precluded from tendering into evidence responses not provided so far that would have been responsive to any of the unanswered interrogatories, absent leave from the Board. In addition, both the Objectors and Access Copyright will be precluded from arguing that the responses obtained as of July 24, 2013 from the Objectors do not form a representative sample.

The Objectors may reply to the attached Access Copyright's motion by no later than Friday, September 13, 2013.

Attachment: Access Copyright Motion re Deficiencies (Sept. 11, 2013).pdf


 

9 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

As per the August 29, 2013 Ruling, Access has not filed any correspondence demonstrating that the additional information from responses to interrogatories not received so far would be distinguishable from what has already been received. Consequently, the Objectors shall not provide responses to interrogatories for which no responses have been provided so far. The Objectors are precluded from tendering into evidence responses not provided so far that would have been responsive to any of the unanswered interrogatories, absent leave from the Board. In addition, both the Objectors and Access Copyright will be precluded from arguing that the responses obtained as of July 24, 2013 from the Objectors do not form a representative sample.


 

29 août 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Ruling of the Board dealing with Motions re: Incomplete/Unsatisfactory Responses to Interrogatories in respect of the above-mentioned file.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright - Grounds for Deficiencies EN.pdf


 

14 août 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Included in the material filed by the Objectors is a request by Access Copyright for a Ruling of the Board (page 3 and 4 of the attached document). The Objectors have already provided a response to this request in their submissions of August 9, 2013. Access Copyright shall provide a reply no later than Monday, August 19, 2013.

Attachment: Access Copyright Motion re Defiencies (July 26, 2013).pdf


 

21 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Order dealing with information for which confidential treatment may be claimed.

Attachment: Access Copyright K-12 2010-2015 - Confidentiality Order.pdf


 

19 juin 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

On June 3, 2013, the Objectors wrote to the Board requesting that Access Copyright be ordered to:

  1. complete the unfinished repertoire analysis of the subject material of the previous tariff;
  2. conduct a full repertoire analysis on the new subject material in the proposed tariff: music, consumables and reproducibles; and
  3. make the results of these repertoire analyses available to the Objectors by July 31, 2013.

On June 6, 2013, Access wrote to the Board, opposing the requests by the Objectors.

For the reasons that follow, the requests are denied.

With respect to the first request, there is no need to complete the unfinished repertoire analysis. Statistical theory suggests that the 6 per cent of exposures that were not analyzed should be broadly similar to the 94 per cent of exposures that were analyzed by Access in 2006. Furthermore, since the 6 per cent of exposures were already treated proportionally in the 2006 analysis, the maximum possible decrease in compensable transactions is approximately one percentage point. The costs and imposition of conducting the additional study would far outweigh any benefit from the additional precision that may be gained. The argument raised by the Objectors relating to the distribution of transactions analyzed is irrelevant to whether or not the repertoire analysis should be completed, since repertoire analysis proceeds on a per-exposure basis, not a per-transaction basis.

That being said, and largely for the reasons given by the Objectors, the Board disagrees with Access' contention that its lookup tool can be used to undertake a proper repertoire analysis. This does not leave the Objectors without the means of conducting an analysis of the remaining 6 per cent of exposures, if they feel this is absolutely necessary. They could negotiate with Access for the use of its internal repertoire analysis tools or even, hire Access to conduct that analysis.

With respect to the second request, Access has promised to conduct a repertoire analysis pertaining to music, consumables and reproducibles. The second request is denied on the expectation that this analysis will be conducted. While Access is not obliged to file this analysis prior to the deadline for filing its case in December, it would be of considerable help to the Board, let alone the objectors, if the analysis were filed beforehand.

Since the first and second requests are being denied, the third request is moot.


 

3 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright can respond to the attached objectors' request no later than Thursday, June 6, 2013. The objectors are to reply no later than Tuesday, June 11, 2013.

Attachment: Letter to Board re: completion of 2006 repertoire analysis Final 3 June 2013.pdf


 

30 mai 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d'auteur du Canada a rendu une décision provisoire dans le dossier précité à l'égard de la demande de décision provisoire formulée par Access Copyright. La décision provisoire est affichée sur le site web de la Commission sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Décisions récentes » à : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

6 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Access Copyright is asked to provide, no later than Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following information:

- the number of educational institutions for which the royalty instalment payable on April 30, 2013 pursuant to the Access Copyright Elementary and Secondary School Tariff, 2005-2009 has been received as of today, May 6, 2013;

- the number of educational institutions for which the royalty instalment payable on April 30, 2012 pursuant to the Access Copyright Elementary and Secondary School Tariff, 2005-2009 had been received as of May 6, 2012.

The Objectors may provide any information they have to the contrary no later than Friday, May 10, 2013.


 

2 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Ruling of the Board dealing with objections to interrogatories.

Attachment: Ruling - Access Copyright K-12 - Objections to Interrogatories EN.pdf


 

30 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors are asked to respond by no later than Monday, May 6, 2013, to comments made by Access Copyright in its covering letter of April 26, 2013 to the Board (attached), in respect of a proposed sample size of 120 schools and 36 school boards for the purpose of directing interrogatories.

Attachment: 2013-04-26 Cover letter re Access Replies to Objections.pdf


 

9 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors are asked to reply to the attached Access Copyright Application by no later than Monday, April 15, 2013. Access Copyright can reply by no later than Friday, April 19, 2013.

Attachment: 2013-04-08 Interim Tariff Application (K-12).pdf


 

8 avril 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMISSION

En référence à l'avis de la Commission en date du 15 mars 2013, vous trouverez ci-joint la directive sur la procédure.


NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the Board's Notice of March 15, 2013, attached is the Directive on Procedure.

Attachment: Access Copyright - K-12 - Directive on Procedure and Appendices.pdf


 

25 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Having perused the interrogatories exchanged between the parties, the Board is of the preliminary view that certain questions are not relevant, in whole or in part, to the issues identified to date, while the relevance of others ought to be better asserted from the outset.

The following comments are, again, preliminary and indicative. They do not aim to be necessarily exhaustive. A questioning party is free to explain why a question is relevant even though the Board is of the preliminary view that it is not. A responding party is free to argue that a question not mentioned in this notice is irrelevant or otherwise that it should not have to respond to it as per the usual reasons. The principle according to which parties are required to provide only what they have in the form they have it continues to apply. The Board expects these issues to be raised, if necessary, in the context of objections to interrogatories.

Burden of proof

The Board wishes to review some of the guidelines it uses when dealing with burden of proof.

  1. Rules dealing with the burden of proof are not applied rigidly before the Board.
  2. The person who challenges the status quo is generally asked to demonstrate why the status quo either (a) no longer holds or (b) should be questioned.
  3. The status quo can be challenged on the basis of indirect, reliable (even hearsay) evidence. For example, if reliable sources point to a consensus that the copying habits of certain persons have changed, direct evidence may not be necessary to conclude that such change has occurred. However, other evidence may be required to demonstrate the extent of the change.
  4. Where relevant evidence is available to one party but not the other, the party with access to the evidence may be asked to provide the information.
  5. Users seeking to invoke an exception or "right" have the burden of establishing, on the basis of evidence, that they may avail themselves of that exception or right. In the context of a tariff (a general measure of prospective application), it may be difficult to prove each instance involving such a claim. Sufficiency of the evidence is a matter to be decided by the panel.

Agreed Statement of Facts

The parties should attempt to prepare and file, early in these proceedings, an agreed statement of facts. To the extent possible, this should be done no later than on Friday, April 26, 2013, the date by which interrogatory disputes are to be submitted; this will allow the Board to take the parties' agreement into account in its subsequent ruling. The agreed statement need not be complete or be filed all at once. Parties may file a partial statement as soon as agreement is reached on certain issues, while continuing discussions on the possibility of reaching further agreements.

Document Entitled Copyright Matters

Objectors' counsel apparently prepared the above-referenced document. Prima facie, the document may be of crucial importance in these proceedings. This raises the issue of counsel participation in proceedings when counsel was involved in the preparation of a document that constitutes evidence. Parties are urged to come to an understanding of how the document, if it is to be used, may be addressed or challenged without requiring counsel's participation as a witness. The Board does not wish that these proceedings be derailed solely because counsel no longer can participate in this role and must be replaced.

Relevant Period

Access and publishers are not required to answer for any period before January 1, 2010 unless objectors consent to provide information for that same period, or unless objectors convince the Board that disclosure over a longer time period is required from Access than from the objectors.

With respect to Q52 to 64 (Access to objectors) and Q37, 41 (objectors to Access): parties' attention is brought to point 5) under "Burden of Proof", above. As regards the effect of putatively fair dealings on the work, trending data may prove especially helpful. Consequently, the Board may ask objectors (and, to a more limited extent, Access) to produce such data relating, for example, to the purchases of works by educational institutions over a longer period of time.

Access Questions to Objectors

The statement of issues filed by Access, while still wide-ranging, is of some help in focussing the issues. Cross-references from Q2 to 64 to the stated issues is appreciated.

The Board notes the overlap between Q1 to 64 and Q65 to 102. The burden on individual schools of responding to Q65 to 102 probably will be lightened significantly if Ministries and school boards provide sufficient information or if parties agreed to certain facts. That being said, if Q65 to 102 are, in whole in part, the subject of an agreed statement of facts, parties should expect that the Board will wish to have direct evidence from a representative sample of individual schools.

Objectors' Questions to Access

General information (1 to 3, 5, 6), financial or business information (30) [except information relating to the possibility of Access acting as an agent of non-members (31)], information pertaining to collection and distribution of royalties (27, 29) [except to the extent such questions relate to the value Access ascribes to various types of copies (28)], 34 [except to the extent required to identify the 20 publishers who may be asked to respond to Q36 to 41]: these questions are not relevant.

Q32 asks for information which, to a large extent, should be disclosed in the statement of case of Access. However, in the interest of expediting the proceedings, Access is asked (but not required) to answer the question.

Objectors are asked to explain the relevance of Q11, 18, 23 and 33.

Reasonableness

Parties are reminded that the amount of information sought must remain reasonable, taking into account the importance of the issues at hand. Also, if party A requests extremely detailed information from party B, A may be ordered to provide relevant information in equally painful detail. Prima facie, to the extent affiliated publishers are required to provide all the information set out in Q35 to 46, objectors may be asked to prove that every copying instance for which they claim fair dealing effectively meets the conditions set out in the Act.


 

15 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please see the attached Notice of the Board.

Attachment: Notice of the Board (15-03-2013) EN .pdf



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. CBC-SRC, Explora)


 

24 janvier 2017up arrow

Ci-joint la version anglaise de l’ordonnance [CB-CDA 2017-003].

p.j. : RUL-2017-01-04-CB-CDA 2017-003 - EN.pdf


 

4 janvier 2017up arrow

Veuillez trouver ci-jointe l’ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-003] rendue dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

La version anglaise de l’ordonnance suivra.

p.j. : RUL-2017-01-04-CB-CDA 2017-003.pdf


 

25 novembre 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-095]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Toutes les requêtes relatives aux déficiences des réponses, y compris l’absence de réponses, aux demandes de renseignements seront traitées selon l’échéancier en vigueur. Les parties sont libres de revoir les dates d’échanges des requêtes entre elles. Leurs requêtes et réponses afférentes devront être produites à la Commission au plus tard le 6 décembre 2016, selon l’échéancier en vigueur.


 

16 novembre 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-093]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint une requête de la SODRAC ainsi qu’une version révisée de cette requête. LA SRC peut y répondre au plus tard le jeudi 17 novembre 2016. La SODRAC peut répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 18 novembre 2016.

p.j.

49) LET-2016-11-16 Demande de la SODRAC (lettre seulement).pdf
50) EMA-2016-11-16 - Requête corrigée SODRAC.pdf


 

24 octobre 2016up arrow

The schedule of proceedings is modified as requested and agreed upon by the parties.


From: Campanella, Nadia: CB-CDA
Sent: October-21-16 3:57 PM
To: L. Bertrand; C. Matteau; M. Nitoslawski; M. Shortt; S. Xuefeng Qi.; C. Masse; M. Lavalée
Cc: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Subject: RE: Dossiers: 70.2-2008-01, 70.2-2012-01, 70.2-2016-01, 70.2-2011-03

Bonjour,

L’échéance d’aujourd’hui (21 octobre 2016) est en suspens. La Commission vous reviendra sous peu avec le nouveau calendrier des procédures.


De: L. Bertrand
Envoyé: jeudi 20 octobre 2016 14:19
À: G. McDougall
Cc: Marek Nitoslawski; Michael Shortt; Lisane Bertrand; Colette Matteau
Objet: Dossiers: 70.2-2008-01, 70.2-2012-01, 70.2-2016-01, 70.2-2011-03

Monsieur Mc Dougall,

L'échéancier dans les dossiers en titre prévoyait la transmission des réponses de SRC/CBC le 30 septembre 2016 et le dépôt des requêtes pour insuffisance le 21 octobre 2016.

La recherche et la vérification des documents de SRC/CBC prend beaucoup plus de temps que prévu. Les parties estiment qu'il est essentiel que cet exercice se fasse avec grand soin et sérieux. Par ailleurs, les versions finales des questionnaires structurés viennent d'être terminés suite à la décision de la Commission du 11 octobre et nécessitent un délai raisonnable pour y répondre. En conséquence, pour arriver à ces objectifs, les parties ont convenu qu'il était nécessaire de modifier l'échéancier.

Les parties soumettent l'échéancier modifié suivant qu'elles demandent respectueusement à la Commission de sanctionner:

Étapes Date d’échéance (au plus tard le)
Réponses SODRAC aux demandes de renseignements Vendredi le 30 septembre 2016
Réponses SRC/CBC aux demandes de renseignements Mardi le 15 novembre 2016
Échange des requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Lundi le 28 novembre 2016
Échange des réponses aux requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Mardi le 6 décembre 2016
[Ordonnance de la Commission]
Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Vendredi le 13 janvier 2017
Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause et des rapports d’experts de la SODRAC Lundi le 27 mars 2017
Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause et des rapports d’experts de la SRC Lundi le 15 mai 2017
Dépôt par la SODRAC des répliques à l’énoncé de cause et aux rapports d’experts de la SRC Mardi le 13 juin 2017
[Conférence préparatoire, si requise]
Dépôt des mémoires sur les questions juridiques (sur demande) Vendredi le 16 juin 2017
Début de l’audience Mardi le 20 juin 2017 à 10h00.

Nous remercions la Commission de l'attention portée à la présente.

Pour Matteau Poirier Avocats inc.

Éloïse Le Gresley, secrétaire/assistant
Matteau Poirier avocats Inc.


 

11 octobre 2016up arrow

Ci-joint l’ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-084] dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

La version anglaise de l’ordonnance suivra.

p.j. : RUL-2016-10-11-CB-CDA 2016-084.pdf


 

17 août 2016up arrow

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-078]

Veuillez prendre note de l’ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-078] , ci-jointe, rendue dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-08-17-CB-CDA 2016-078.pdf


 

20 juillet 2016up arrow

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-072]

The Board agrees with the request as described below.


From: Lisane Bertrand
Sent: July-20-16 9:53 AM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Marek Nitoslawski; Michael Shortt; Christophe Masse; mlavallee
Subject: SODRAC et SRC , dossiers : 70.2-2008-01 (Réexamen), 70.2-2012-01 et 70.2-2016-01 (Examen)

Monsieur McDougall,

Les parties ont convenu de modifier certaines dates d'échéances dans le Calendrier des procédures. Elles demandent donc à la Commission d'accepter les suivantes:

Étapes Nouvelle date d’échéance Date originale d’échéance
Réponse aux demandes renseignements : 30 septembre 2016 2 septembre
Échange des requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : 21 octobre 2016 14 octobre
Échange des réponses aux requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : 4 novembre 2016 28 octobre

Cordialement,

Lisane Bertrand
Avocate


 

13 juillet 2016up arrow

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-069]

La Commission accepte la demande décrite ci-dessous.


From: Lisane Bertrand
Sent: July-11-16 4:31 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: M. Nitoslawski; M. Shortt
Subject: SODRAC et SRC : Dossiers 70.2-2008-01, 70.2-2012-01, 70.2-2016-02

Monsieur McDougall,

L'échéancier du réexamen 2008-2012 et de l'arbitrage 2012-2017 prévoit les deux prochaines étapes suivantes :

- Dépôt des requêtes à l'égard des oppositions aux demandes de renseignements: Vendredi 15 juillet 2016

- Dépôt des réponses aux requêtes à l'égard des oppositions aux demandes de renseignements: Vendredi 22 juillet 2016

Les parties se sont rencontrées depuis l'échange de leurs oppositions à leurs demandes de renseignements respectives, ont déjà échangé leurs réponses verbales ou écrites aux oppositions et continuent activement leurs discussions.

En conséquence, les parties désirent modifier l'échéancier afin que l'étape du 15 juillet n'implique pas un dépôt à la Commission. Les parties croient qu'il serait plus efficace et approprié qu'un seul dépôt à la Commission se fasse le 22 juillet, dépôt qui comprendra les réponses finales de la partie qui pose la question à l'opposition de l'autre partie de même que la réplique finale de la partie qui présente l'opposition, réponse et réplique qui pourront l'une et l'autre tenir compte des échanges entre les parties qui ont pu amener une modification de la demande de renseignements et des accords partiels. Cette façon de faire minimisera le nombre de demandes qui seront déposées à la Commission en permettant aux parties d'aller au bout de leurs discussions et de mieux cibler l'enjeu qui demeurerait, le cas échéant.

Dans l'attente de vos nouvelles, veuillez agréer l'expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.

Lisane Bertrand
Avocate
Matteau Poirier avocats inc.


 

27 juin 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-064]

Veuillez prendre note de la décision provisoire ci-jointe dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

P.j. : DEC-2016-06-27-CB-CDA 2016-064.pdf


 

7 juin 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-048]

Veuillez prendre note de la décision ci-jointe de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-048] dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-06-07 CB-CDA 048.pdf;


 

27 mai 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-042]

Veuillez prendre note de la décision ci-jointe de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-042] dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-05-27 CB-CDA 042.pdf;


 

19 mai 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-040]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Suite à la demande des parties en date du 10 mai 2016, vous trouverez ci-joint l’ordonnance de confidentialité de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-040] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : ORD-2016-05-19 - CB-CDA 040 - SODRAC c. SRC - Ordonnance de confidentialité.pdf;


 

14 avril 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-032]

Ci-joint la directive sur la procédure [CB-CDA 2016-032] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

P.j. : DIR-2016-04-14-CB-CDA 032.pdf;


 

5 avril 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-031]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Ci-joint une décision [CB-CDA 2016-031] de la Commission dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

P.j. : RUL-2016-04-05-CB-CDA 031.pdf;


 

10 mars 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-025]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Ci-joint une décision de la Commission dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

P.j. : RUL-2016-03-10-CB-CDA 2016-025.pdf;


 

4 février 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-010]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Ci-joint un avis de la Commission dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

Attachment : NOT-2016-02-04-CB-CDA 2016-010.pdf;


 

7 décembre 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-076]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La SRC peut répondre à la requête de la SODRAC ci-jointe au plus tard le vendredi 11 décembre 2015. La SODRAC peut répliquer au plus tard le mercredi 16 décembre 2015.

P.J. :
2015-12-04 Demande de licence provisoire SRC-CBC.pdf;
2015-12-04_Annexe A_Projet Licence provisoire SRC.pdf


 

Avril 17, 2014flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Suite au jugement en date du 31 mars 2014 de la Cour d'appel fédérale dans les dossiers A-516-12 et A-527-12, la Commission a révisé les licences SODRAC c. CBC/SRC et SODRAC c. Astral. Les licences révisées se trouvent à l'adresse suivante : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/arbitration-arbitrage-f.html.


 

January 16, 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La décision provisoire de la Commission à l'égard du dossier en rubrique est disponible sur notre site web à l'adresse suivante: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

8 novembre, 2012flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

SRC/CBC peut répondre à la requête de la SODRAC ci-dessous au plus tard le vendredi, 16 novembre 2012. La SODRAC peut répliquer au plus tard le vendredi, 23 novembre 2012.

M Mc Dougall,

Le 30 avril 2012 , la Commission avait établi une licence provisoire pour SRC/CBC se terminant à la date de la décision finale dans la demande d'arbitrage de la SODRAC du 14 novembre 2008.

Cette décision finale ayant été rendue hier, la SODRAC demande qu'à compter d'aujourd'hui 3 novembre 2012, la licence permanente émise en date du 2 novembre 2012 s'applique à titre provisoire dans la demande d'arbitrage de la SODRAC déposée le 26 mars 2012 pour la période 2012-2016 (dossier 70.2-2012-01). Cette licence représente maintenant le statu quo

Respectueusement soumis

Colette Matteau


 

30 avril 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les motifs de la décision disposant des demandes de décision provisoire à l'égard des bornes interactives, d'Explora et d'une licence générale applicable du 1er avril 2012 au 31 mars 2016 sont disponibles sur notre site web à l'adresse : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.

L'examen de la licence finale pour les bornes interactives attendra que la Commission tranche dans l'arbitrage en délibéré. On devrait alors pouvoir procéder par écrit, en limitant le débat pour tenir compte du caractère modeste du montant en jeu.

L'examen de la licence finale pour les activités du service Explora avant le 1er avril 2012 se fera en même temps que celui de la licence générale pour 2012-2016.

L'examen de la licence finale pour 2012-2016 est suspendu jusqu'à ce que la Commission rende une décision dans l'arbitrage en délibéré.


 

30 avril 2012up arrow

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission confirme que le service Espace.mu est visé dans l'alinéa 2(b) de la licence provisoire du 31 mars 2009 dans le dossier 70.2-2008-01. La Commission disposera de la demande de licence finale visant ce service dans le cadre du dossier précité. Dans sa demande initiale d'arbitrage, la SODRAC cherchait à ce que soient établis les droits et modalités notamment « Pour une licence visant la Web diffusion audio et audiovisuelle » [para. 25], sans se limiter aux services offerts au moment de son dépôt. La Commission est donc saisie à l'égard d'Espace.mu.


 

27 mars 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La SRC peut déposer une réponse à la demande ci-jointe de la SODRAC au plus tard le mardi 3 avril 2012. La SODRAC pourra déposer une réplique au plus tard le mardi 10 avril 2012.

Attachment : Demande d'arbitrage 2012-2016 R C 03 2012.pdf; 2012-03-22_Radio-Canada lance Explora_Cyberpresse.pdf


 

5 décembre 2011up arrow

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission désire recevoir la réponse de la SRC à la demande de la SODRAC, ci-jointe, au plus tard le mercredi, 7 décembre 2011. La SODRAC pourra soumettre sa réplique au plus tard le vendredi 9 décembre 2011.

p.j. : demande d'arbitrage.pdf


 

4 mai 2011up arrow

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission demande aux parties de répondre aux questions suivantes au plus tard le vendredi 13 mai 2011. Les parties pourront déposer des répliques à ces réponses, au plus tard le vendredi, 20 mai 2011.

Questions à la SRC

  1. Une entente entre la CMRRA et la radio de la SRC a été déposée auprès de la Commission. Existe-t-il une entente similaire entre la CMRRA et la télévision de la SRC? Si oui, veuillez en fournir une copie à la Commission.
  2. Dans votre lettre à la Commission datée du 28 décembre 2010, vous affirmez que la SRC et RDI rediffusent 81 120 minutes de programmation par année. Ces minutes de rediffusions sont-elles seulement à l'égard de la SRC (français) et RDI? Si oui, une telle estimation s'applique-t-elle également aux canaux de la CBC (anglais), Bold, Documentary et News Network?

Questions à la SOORAC

  1. Le 23 juillet 2010, la Commission a été informée qu'une entente venait d'être conclue entre SOORAC et MusiquePlus. Si les parties a !'entente n'ont pas d'objections, la Commission aimerait recevoir une copie de cette entente.
  2. A l'égard des œuvres cinématographiques présentées en salle (tel que mentionné dans le tarif), combien de licences de première intégration, dans lesquelles la présentation en salle ne constitue pas le marché principal d'exploitation, signez-vous chaque année avec les producteurs?

Quelle est la proportion du nombre de ces licences par rapport au nombre total de licences?



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. ARTV)


 

27 novembre 2014

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La décision provisoire de la Commission à l'égard du dossier en rubrique est disponible sur notre site web à l'adresse suivante : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

2 octobre 2014

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

ARTV peut déposer une réponse à la demande ci-jointe de la SODRAC au plus tard le vendredi 17 octobre 2014.

La SODRAC pourra déposer une réplique au plus tard le vendredi 24 octobre 2014.

Attachment : 2014-09-30 – Demande d’arbitrage ARTV.pdf


 

12 janvier 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

À cause d'un problème de nature technique, des erreurs typographiques se sont glissées dans le texte de la décision du 5 janvier 2012 dans l'affaire indiquée en rubrique. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une version révisée de la décision dans laquelle ces erreurs ont été corrigées. Cette nouvelle version est également disponible sur le site de la Commission à l'adresse: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html. Nous nous excusons des inconvénients que cela aurait pu causer.

Attachment : Interim - SODRAC c  ARTV (2012-01-05).pdf


 

6 janvier 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La décision provisoire de la Commission à l'égard du dossier en rubrique est disponible sur notre site web à l'adresse suivante: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

19 octobre 2011

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Le 30 septembre 2011, la SODRAC déposait une demande en vertu des articles 66.51 et 70.2 de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur à l'égard d'ARTV. Cette dernière y a répondu le 7 octobre 2011 et la SODRAC a déposé une réplique le 11 octobre 2011. Le 13 octobre 2011, ARTV a déposé une nouvelle réplique sans que la Commission l'ait sollicité ou autorisé. La Commission a exclu cette nouvelle réplique du dossier. 

Dans les affaires courantes de la Commission, les parties ne sont généralement pas autorisées, sauf sur requête préalable et motivée, à déposer des commentaires autrement que dans le cadre d'un processus requête-réponse-réplique. C'est en vertu d'un écart à ce cadre habituel que la Commission avait exclu la nouvelle réplique d'ARTV.

Néanmoins, à la demande expresse d'ARTV, la Commission a revu sa décision et accepte maintenant d'inclure la nouvelle réplique d'ARTV dans le dossier en rubrique. La SODRAC peut déposer une réponse à cette réplique au plus tard le vendredi 21 octobre 2011. Aucun commentaire supplémentaire des parties ne sera accepté par la suite.


 

18 octobre 2011

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La réplique d'ARTV ci-dessous, non sollicitée par la Commission, est exclue du dossier en rubrique.

Réplique d'ARTV :
Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

Un dernier mot en réplique, si vous me le permettez :

1) ARTV ne fait pas, ou très peu, de productions internes.  Son modèle d'affaires a évolué. Une licence générale telle que formulée à SODRAC-1 n'est plus appropriée.  ARTV ne prétend pas vouloir agir sans licence pour une production interne, s'il en est.  Elle négociera alors la license voulue.

2) Les redevances que ARTV payait sous SODRAC-1 équivalent presque à ce que ASTRAL paye en vertu de la licence provisoire émise par la Commission le 14 décembre 2009 dans le dossier 70.2-2008-02. Or les revenus d'ASTRAL sont de quelque 20 fois supérieurs aux revenus d'ARTV.  Accéder à la demande de SODRAC équivaudrait à prolonger indûment une iniquité manifeste qui doit être rectifiée, même au stade provisoire.



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. Bornes Interactives de la SRC. 75e anniversaire)


 

24 janvier 2017up arrow

Ci-joint la version anglaise de l’ordonnance [CB-CDA 2017-003].

p.j. : RUL-2017-01-04-CB-CDA 2017-003 - EN.pdf


 

4 janvier 2017up arrow

Veuillez trouver ci-jointe l’ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-003] rendue dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

La version anglaise de l’ordonnance suivra.

p.j. : RUL-2017-01-04-CB-CDA 2017-003.pdf


 

25 novembre 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-095]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Toutes les requêtes relatives aux déficiences des réponses, y compris l’absence de réponses, aux demandes de renseignements seront traitées selon l’échéancier en vigueur. Les parties sont libres de revoir les dates d’échanges des requêtes entre elles. Leurs requêtes et réponses afférentes devront être produites à la Commission au plus tard le 6 décembre 2016, selon l’échéancier en vigueur.


 

16 novembre 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-093]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint une requête de la SODRAC ainsi qu’une version révisée de cette requête. LA SRC peut y répondre au plus tard le jeudi 17 novembre 2016. La SODRAC peut répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 18 novembre 2016.

p.j.

49) LET-2016-11-16 Demande de la SODRAC (lettre seulement).pdf
50) EMA-2016-11-16 - Requête corrigée SODRAC.pdf


 

24 octobre 2016up arrow

The schedule of proceedings is modified as requested and agreed upon by the parties.


From: Campanella, Nadia: CB-CDA
Sent: October-21-16 3:57 PM
To: L. Bertrand; C. Matteau; M. Nitoslawski; M. Shortt; S. Xuefeng Qi.; C. Masse; M. Lavalée
Cc: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Subject: RE: Dossiers: 70.2-2008-01, 70.2-2012-01, 70.2-2016-01, 70.2-2011-03

Bonjour,

L’échéance d’aujourd’hui (21 octobre 2016) est en suspens. La Commission vous reviendra sous peu avec le nouveau calendrier des procédures.


De: L. Bertrand
Envoyé: jeudi 20 octobre 2016 14:19
À: G. McDougall
Cc: Marek Nitoslawski; Michael Shortt; Lisane Bertrand; Colette Matteau
Objet: Dossiers: 70.2-2008-01, 70.2-2012-01, 70.2-2016-01, 70.2-2011-03

Monsieur Mc Dougall,

L'échéancier dans les dossiers en titre prévoyait la transmission des réponses de SRC/CBC le 30 septembre 2016 et le dépôt des requêtes pour insuffisance le 21 octobre 2016.

La recherche et la vérification des documents de SRC/CBC prend beaucoup plus de temps que prévu. Les parties estiment qu'il est essentiel que cet exercice se fasse avec grand soin et sérieux. Par ailleurs, les versions finales des questionnaires structurés viennent d'être terminés suite à la décision de la Commission du 11 octobre et nécessitent un délai raisonnable pour y répondre. En conséquence, pour arriver à ces objectifs, les parties ont convenu qu'il était nécessaire de modifier l'échéancier.

Les parties soumettent l'échéancier modifié suivant qu'elles demandent respectueusement à la Commission de sanctionner:

Étapes Date d’échéance (au plus tard le)
Réponses SODRAC aux demandes de renseignements Vendredi le 30 septembre 2016
Réponses SRC/CBC aux demandes de renseignements Mardi le 15 novembre 2016
Échange des requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Lundi le 28 novembre 2016
Échange des réponses aux requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Mardi le 6 décembre 2016
[Ordonnance de la Commission]
Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements Vendredi le 13 janvier 2017
Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause et des rapports d’experts de la SODRAC Lundi le 27 mars 2017
Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause et des rapports d’experts de la SRC Lundi le 15 mai 2017
Dépôt par la SODRAC des répliques à l’énoncé de cause et aux rapports d’experts de la SRC Mardi le 13 juin 2017
[Conférence préparatoire, si requise]
Dépôt des mémoires sur les questions juridiques (sur demande) Vendredi le 16 juin 2017
Début de l’audience Mardi le 20 juin 2017 à 10h00.

Nous remercions la Commission de l'attention portée à la présente.

Pour Matteau Poirier Avocats inc.

Éloïse Le Gresley, secrétaire/assistant
Matteau Poirier avocats Inc.


 

11 octobre 2016up arrow

Ci-joint l’ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-084] dans les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

La version anglaise de l’ordonnance suivra.

p.j. : RUL-2016-10-11-CB-CDA 2016-084.pdf


 

9 octobre 2014

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La SRC peut déposer une réponse à la demande ci-jointe de la SODRAC au plus tard le jeudi 16 octobre 2014.

La SODRAC pourra déposer une réplique au plus tard le lundi 20 octobre 2014.

Attachment : 2014-10-09 Bornes interactives – Lettre CDA.pdf


 

30 avril 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les motifs de la décision disposant des demandes de décision provisoire à l'égard des bornes interactives, d'Explora et d'une licence générale applicable du 1er avril 2012 au 31 mars 2016 sont disponibles sur notre site web à l'adresse : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.

L'examen de la licence finale pour les bornes interactives attendra que la Commission tranche dans l'arbitrage en délibéré. On devrait alors pouvoir procéder par écrit, en limitant le débat pour tenir compte du caractère modeste du montant en jeu.

L'examen de la licence finale pour les activités du service avant le 1er avril 2012 se fera en même temps que celui de la licence générale pour 2012-2016.

L'examen de la licence finale pour 2012-2016 est suspendu jusqu'à ce que la Commission rende une décision dans l'arbitrage en délibéré.

Application to fix royalties for a licence and its related terms and conditions (SODRAC v. Espace.mu, SRC-CBC)

Application to fix royalties for a licence and its related terms and conditions (SODRAC v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and SODRAC v. Les chaînes Télé Astral and Teletoon)


 

16 janvier 2012

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La SRC peut déposer une réponse à la demande ci-jointe de la SODRAC au plus tard le lundi 23 janvier 2012. La SODRAC pourra déposer une réplique au plus tard le lundi 30 janvier 2012.

Attachment : décembre 2011 Commission Bornes interactives.pdf



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. Espace.mu, SRC-CBC)


 

30 avril 2012

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission confirme que le service Espace.mu est visé dans l'alinéa 2(b) de la licence provisoire du 31 mars 2009 dans le dossier 70.2-2008-01. La Commission disposera de la demande de licence finale visant ce service dans le cadre du dossier précité. Dans sa demande initiale d'arbitrage, la SODRAC cherchait à ce que soient établis les droits et modalités notamment « Pour une licence visant la Web diffusion audio et audiovisuelle » [para. 25], sans se limiter aux services offerts au moment de son dépôt. La Commission est donc saisie à l'égard d'Espace.mu.


 

5 décembre 2011

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission désire recevoir la réponse de la SRC à la demande de la SODRAC, ci-jointe, au plus tard le mercredi, 7 décembre 2011. La SODRAC pourra soumettre sa réplique au plus tard le vendredi 9 décembre 2011.

Attachment : demande d'arbitrage.pdf



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. Société Radio-Canada et SODRAC c. Les chaînes Télé Astral et Teletoon)


 

2 juin 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

With respect to Question 1 of the Board to SODRAC of May 4, 2011, given the objections formulated by SODRAC, it need not file the agreement reached between SODRAC and MusiquePlus.

_________________________________________

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Conformément à la question 1 de la Commission à la SODRAC du 4 mai 2011, compte tenu des objections qu'elle formule, la SODRAC n'est pas tenue de déposer l'entente intervenue entre SODRAC et MusiquePlus.


 

4 mai 2011

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to provide answers to the following questions by no later than Friday, May 13, 2011. Parties can file replies by no later than Friday, May 20, 2011

Questions to CBC

1. The Board was provided with an agreement between CMRRA and CBC Radio. Does such an agreement exist between CMRRA and CBC Television? If so, please provide a copy to the Board.

2. In your letter to the Board dated December 28, 2010, you stated that SRC and RDI rebroadcast 81,120 minutes of programming a year. Do these minutes of rebroadcasts only apply to SRC (French) and RDI channels? If so, would a similar estimation apply to CBC (English), Bold, Documentary and News Network channels?

Questions to SODRAC

1. On July 23, 2010, the Board was informed that an agreement had been reached between SODRAC and MusiquePlus. If both parties to the agreement have no objections, the Board wishes to obtain a copy of this agreement.

2. With regard to cinematographic works exhibited in a theatre as referred to in tariff 5, how many first integration licenses do you sign a year with producers, where the primary exploitation is not exhibition in a theatre? What is the proportion of such licences to the total number of licences?

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission demande aux parties de répondre aux questions suivantes au plus tard le vendredi 13 mai 2011. Les parties pourront déposer des répliques à ces réponses, au plus tard le vendredi, 20 mai 2011.

Questions à la SRC

1. Une entente entre la CMRRA et la radio de la SRC a été déposée auprès de la Commission. Existe-t-il une entente similaire entre la CMRRA et la télévision de la SRC? Si oui, veuillez en fournir une copie à la Commission.

2. Dans votre lettre à la Commission datée du 28 décembre 2010, vous affirmez que la SRC et RDI rediffusent 81 120 minutes de programmation par année. Ces minutes de rediffusions sont-elles seulement à l'égard de la SRC (français) et RDI? Si oui, une telle estimation s'applique-t-elle également aux canaux de la CBC (anglais), Bold, Documentary et News Network?

Questions à la SODRAC

1. Le 23 juillet 2010, la Commission a été informée qu'une entente venait d'être conclue entre SODRAC et MusiquePlus. Si les parties à l'entente n'ont pas d'objections, la Commission aimerait recevoir une copie de cette entente.

2. À l'égard des œuvres cinématographiques présentées en salle (tel que mentionné dans le tarif 5), combien de licences de première intégration, dans lesquelles la présentation en salle ne constitue pas le marché principal d'exploitation, signez-vous chaque année avec les producteurs? Quelle est la proportion du nombre de ces licences par rapport au nombre total de licences?


 

18 mars 2011

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Dans le but de répondre aux engagements qu'elle avait pris lors de l'audience, la SRC a déposé le 29 décembre 2010 un document qui contient des faits nouveaux ainsi que des interprétations nouvelles de faits déjà au dossier. La SRC s'est aussi permis de fournir certains commentaires relevant de l'argumentation.

Ces éléments sont des preuves et prétentions nouvelles. La SODRAC doit avoir l'occasion de faire valoir ses moyens à leur égard. C'est ce qu'elle a fait dans sa lettre du 21 janvier 2011. Il se peut que la SODRAC ait dépassé le cadre strict du commentaire portant sur les réponses fournies par la SRC. Ce dépassement, si tant est qu'il existe, n'est pas plus sérieux que celui auquel la SRC s'est elle-même livrée dans un document qui, à strictement parler, ne nécessitait aucun commentaire de nature éditoriale.

La SRC a rempli ses engagements. La SODRAC a commenté les réponses de la SRC. Cette dernière a répliqué aux commentaires de la SODRAC. Il revient pour le reste à la Commission de faire la part des choses.

La requête de la SRC visant à faire retirer du dossier la lettre de la SODRAC du 21 janvier 2011 est rejetée.


 

22 juillet 2010

La Commission accepte la demande de la SODRAC et reporte les dates d'échéance du dépôt des réponses à l'égard des commentaires de la CMPDA au mercredi, le l5 septembre 2010, et des répliques à ces réponses au mercredi, le 29 septembre 2010.

The Board accepts SODRAC's request and extends the deadlines for filing submissions with respect to CMPDA's comments to Wednesday, September 15, 2010, and for replies to those submissions to Wednesday, September 29, 2010.


 

19 juillet 2010

CMPDA's comments of June 16, 2010 (attached for convenience) were filed pursuant to the directive on procedure and as such, are part of the record. Parties are entitled to respond to these comments. However, a review of the transcripts of the June 18, 2010 hearing reveals that the parties may have developed the impression that they should wait for the Board to set timelines before doing so. Consequently, the parties may file submissions with respect to these comments no later than on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 and may reply to other parties' submissions no later than Wednesday, September 1, 2010. CMPDA is not allowed to reply to any of those documents.

Les commentaires du 16 juin 2010 de la CMPDA (joints à toutes fins utiles) ayant été déposés conformément à la directive sur la procédure, ils font partie du dossier. Les parties ont droit d'y répondre. Cela dit, une relecture de la transcription de l'audience du 18 juin 2010 indique que les parties auraient pu comprendre qu'elles devraient attendre que la Commission établisse un échéancier avant de le faire. Par conséquent, les parties peuvent répondre à ces commentaires d'ici le mercredi, 18 août 2010 et réagir aux réponses des autres parties d'ici le mercredi, 1er septembre 2010. La CMPDA n'a pas le droit de répondre à ces documents.

Attachment : CMPDA Comments re SODRAC 5 (Final).pdf


 

31 mai 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The Board would like to remind the parties that the SODRAC v. CBC and SODRAC v.
Astral case is separate from the SODRAC Tariff 5 case. Hence, the Board wants to ensure that the evidence only specific to SODRAC Tariff 5 be heard after all of the common evidence to both cases will have been heard. Parties are asked to review the attached list of witnesses and suggest modifications to make sure that the order of witnesses and evidence conform to the fact that these are two distinct matters.

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission rappelle aux parties que le dossier SODRAC c. SRC et SODRAC c. Astral est distinct de celui du tarif 5 de la SODRAC. En conséquence, la Commission veut s'assurer que la preuve spécifique au seul dossier du tarif 5 de la SODRAC soit entendue après que la preuve commune aux deux dossiers aura été entendue. Nous demandons aux parties de revoir la liste des témoins ci-jointe et de suggérer les modifications nécessaires pour que l'ordre des témoins et de la preuve soit conforme au fait qu'il s'agit de deux affaires distinctes.


 

28 mai 2010

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to answer the questions below by no later than Tuesday, June 1, 2010. In addition, the Board asks the parties to ensure that the relevant witnesses will be able to properly explain how the English Canadian television and film markets function when it comes to clearing copyright and to explain the difference, to the extent there is one, between the Canadian and American notions of a buyout.

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Les parties doivent répondre aux questions ci-dessous au plus le mardi, 1er juin, 2010. De plus, la Commission demande aux parties de s'assurer que les témoins pertinents soient en mesure de bien expliquer le fonctionnement des marchés de la télévision et du cinéma canadiens anglais à l'égard de la libération des droits d'auteur ainsi que les différences, si tant est qu'elles existent, entre la notion du "buy out" canadienne et américaine.

SODRAC v. CBC/SRC and/et SODRAC v. ASTRAL Media inc.

Questions à la SODRAC

Question A
Selon les ententes ARTV-SODRAC présentées à la pièce SODRAC-52, le taux de redevance s'est accru de 0,40 pour cent à 0,50 pour cent des revenus entre les années 2001 et 2007, mais a diminué à 0,45 pour cent pour les années 2007 à 2009. Quelles sont les raisons qui expliquent cette baisse de taux?

Question B
La pièce SODRAC-102 comporte une analyse de l'utilisation du répertoire de la SODRAC par la radio de la CBC/SRC. La Commission désire obtenir le détail des calculs qui permettent d'arriver aux pourcentages d'utilisation indiquées dans cette pièce.

Questions to CBC/SRC and Astral

Question A
At paragraph 74 of CBC/SRC and Astral's statement of case, both SRC/CBC and Astral state that SODRAC's claims regarding the use of its repertoire are exaggerated. CBC-12 already provides some details of the content study carried out by CBC. The Board would like to obtain any additional analysis that would have been performed by both CBC/SRC and Astral to arrive at their conclusions.

Question B
At paragraph 177 of Wall Communications Inc. Report (DEF-3), it is stated that: "Under a general synchronization agreement, a significant discount would normally be reflected in the final price. Assuming a discount of 40% was applied, for instance, the total estimated general synchronization license fee would be [".]". Please explain the basis of this discount.

SODRAC Tariff 5 (Video-copies) / Tarif 5 de la SODRAC (Vidéocopies) 2009-2012

Question à la SODRAC

Les redevances minimales que la SODRAC dit rechercher au paragraphe 32 de son énoncé de cause ne correspondent pas à celles calculées aux paragraphes 38 et 39 de son énoncé. La Commission désire obtenir une explication de ces différences, ou les calculs corrigés, le cas échéant.


 

27 mai 2010

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Board accepts that the exhibits submitted by the objectors be filed, subject to the following:

The objectors shall answer SODRAC's questions with respect to AST-5A. To the extent that CBC-15 and CBC-16 are already part of the file, these exhibits must not be filed again.

SODRAC is entitled to reply to this new evidence. As such, the filing of exhibit SODRAC-177 in response to DEF-52 is granted.

With respect to CBC-14, the objectors shall provide explanations, in the form of a witness statement, on the relevance and the use they intend to make of it, by no later than 5:00 p.m. today. SODRAC shall reply by no later than noon tomorrow.

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission accepte le dépôt des pièces soumises par les opposants, sous réserve de ce qui suit:

Les opposants doivent répondre aux questions de la SODRAC à l'égard de AST-5A. Dans la mesure où CBC-15 et CBC-16 font déjà partie du dossier, ces pièces ne doivent pas être déposées de nouveau. La SODRAC pourra répliquer à ces nouveaux éléments de preuve. Conséquemment, le dépôt de la pièce SODRAC-177 en réponse à DEF-52 est accordé.

À l'égard de CBC-14, les opposants doivent fournir des explications, sous forme de
sommaire du témoignage, quant à la pertinence et l'utilisation que compte en faire les opposants, et ce au plus tard aujourd'hui à 17h00. La SODRAC déposera sa réplique au plus tard demain à midi.


 

21 mai 2010

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

Filing of supplementary exhibits DEF-36 to DEF-44

The Board accepts that these exhibits be filed. Parties are not entitled as of right to add to the evidence between filing their statement of case and the start of hearings. That being said, the reason invoked to justify the late filing is reasonable and some of the licences appear to pertain to markets or levels of trade that were not covered in the evidence filed to date.

SODRAC will be entitled to reply to this new evidence.

The party who wishes to file additional evidence should provide reasons in support of the application to file.

Ordering SODRAC to file forthcoming renunciations

Ms. Matteau's undertaking is sufficient.

Witness timetable and Procedure

The objectors' timetable is accepted.

Oral argument will be on June 18.

The objectors will be allowed to make a short opening presentation before they start presenting their respective evidence.

There is no need for the Board to react to the objectors' other comments on these issues.

Identification of what is relevant to the arbitration, to video-copy and to both

In so far as the Board is concerned, the objectors' identification is correct.

Confidentiality of some information and sufficiency of a sample of licences

The matter is settled.
__________________________

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Dépôt des pièces supplémentaires DEF-36 à DEF-44

La Commission accepte le dépôt de ces pièces. Les parties n'ont pas le droit strict d'ajouter à leur preuve entre le dépôt de l'énoncé de cause et le début des audiences. Cela dit, le motif justifiant le dépôt tardif est raisonnable et certaines des licences semblent viser des marchés ou niveaux de marchés qui n'étaient pas couverts par ce qui a été déposé jusqu'ici.

La SODRAC pourra demander de répliquer à ces nouveaux éléments de preuve.

La partie qui envisagerait de déposer d'autres éléments de preuve supplémentaire devra exposer les motifs au soutien de sa demande de dépôt.

Ordonnance obligeant la SODRAC à déposer les renonciations à venir

L'engagement de Me Matteau suffit.

Tableau des témoins et procédure

L'échéancier que proposent les opposants est retenu.

L'argumentation orale aura lieu le 18 juin.

Les opposants pourront faire une courte présentation d'ouverture avant de débuter la présentation de leur preuve respective.

Il n'est pas nécessaire que la Commission réagisse au reste des commentaires des opposants à ce sujet.

Identification de ce gui est pertinent à l'arbitrage, à la vidéocopie et aux deux dossiers

Pour autant que la Commission est concernée, la répartition effectuée par les opposants est correcte.

Caractère confidentiel de certains renseignements et contestation de la suffisance d'un échantillon de licences

La question est réglée.


 

17 mai 2010

The Board would like to receive the objectors' response to SODRAC's letter of May 14, 2010 by no later than Wednesday May 19, 2010 at noon.


 

19 janvier 2010

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

As requested in Mr. Mark Hayes' letter of January 11, 2010, Mr. Hayes will be added as co-counsel to Astral and CBC. As requested in Me Matteau's letter of January 12, 2010, SODRAC and the Board are only required to correspond with Fasken Martineau Dumoulin.

The Board will not apply the implicit attribution rules that Mr. Hayes proposed to follow. It is up to Messrs. Hayes and Nitoslawski always to indicate clearly on behalf of whom they are speaking at any point in time.

In his letter, Mr. Hayes takes issue with paragraph 5.2.2 of the interim licence without formally applying for a change in the licence. The Board will not deal with the matter until and unless Astral files a formal application to vary.

Mr. Hayes raises other issues that need not be addressed. An interim decision is of necessity made on the basis of an imperfect understanding of a incomplete record. The matters the objectors raised remain open.

__________________________

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Suite à la demande formulée dans sa lettre du 11 janvier 2010, Me Mark Hayes est identifié comme co-procureur d'Astral et de la SRC. Suite à la demande formulée par Me Matteau dans sa lettre du 12 janvier 2010, la SODRAC et la Commission sont tenues de contacter les opposants uniquement par le truchement de l'étude Fasken Martineau Dumoulin.

La Commission n'appliquera pas les règles d'attribution implicites que Me Hayes a proposées. Il revient à Mes Hayes et Nitoslawski de toujours indiquer clairement pour qui ils s'expriment dans chaque instance.

Dans sa lettre, Me Hayes conteste le paragraphe 5.2.2 de la licence provisoire sans demander de façon expresse qu'il soit modifié. La Commission ne traitera pas de la question avant qu'Astral demande formellement une telle modification, si elle le désire.

Point n'est besoin de se pencher sur les autres questions que Me Hayes soulève. Une décision provisoire est nécessairement rendue en se fondant sur une compréhension imparfaite d'un dossier incomplet. Le débat sur les questions que les opposantes soulèvent reste ouvert.


 

22 décembre 2009

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

The December 15, 2009 application of CAFDE is granted in part.

The SODRAC Tariff 5 (video-copies) hearing is postponed to June 2010, at a date to be determined later. The hearing will begin after the hearing of the Astral/CBC matter which starts on Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

The Board adopts the dates already set for filing the response and reply records in the Astral/CBC matter as dates for these same filings in the video-copy matter. Hence, the schedule of the video-copy matter is revised in the following way:

Filing of Objectors' case: no later than Friday, April 9, 2010.

Filing of SODRAC's reply case: no later than Friday, May 14, 2010.

The Board requests that, if possible, parties agree on the delay between the end of the Astral/CBC hearing and the beginning of the second one, by reason that both matters must end no later than on Thursday, June 17, 2010.

Unless the Board orders otherwise, any evidence common to both matters should be heard during the hearing of the Astral/CBC matter, so as to allow Ms. Matteau sufficient time to prepare the online music services hearing.

__________________________

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission fait droit pour partie à la demande de CAFDE du 15 décembre 2009.

L'audience sur le tarif 5 de la SODRAC (vidéocopies) est reportée au mois de juin 2010, à une date à être déterminée ultérieurement. Cette audience aura lieu après celle sur le dossier Astral/SRC, qui débutera le mardi, 1er juin 2010.

La Commission adopte comme dates de dépôt de la preuve en réponse et en réplique dans le dossier de la vidéocopie, les dates prévues pour le dépôt de ces mêmes éléments de preuve dans le dossier Astral/SRC. L'horaire du dossier de la vidéocopie est donc modifié de la manière suivante :

Dépôt de l'énoncé de cause des opposants : au plus tard vendredi, 9 avril 2010.

Dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC : au plus tard vendredi, 14 mai 2010.

Dans la mesure du possible, la Commission demande aux parties de s'entendre sur le délai entre la fin de l'audience dans le dossier Astral/SRC et le début de la seconde, étant entendu que les deux affaires doivent avoir pris fin au plus tard le jeudi 17 juin 2010.

À moins d'ordonnance à l'effet contraire, toute preuve commune aux deux dossiers devrait être entendue dans le cadre de l'audience sur le dossier Astral/SRC, de façon à laisser à Me Matteau suffisamment de temps pour préparer l'audience sur le dossier de la musique en ligne.


 

15 décembre 2009

La Commission apprécierait recevoir vos commentaires sur la proposition avancée par le nouveau procureur de la CAFDE (voir lettre ci-jointe) -[letter not attached] d'ici vendredi midi, 18 décembre 2009.


 

14 décembre 2009

DÉCISION PROVISOIRE DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission a rendu une décision portant sur la demande de licence provisoire de la SODRAC déposée le 1er septembre dernier dans le dossier cité en rubrique. La décision est disponible sur le site Web de la Commission, sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Décisions récentes » au: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.


 

3 décembre 2009

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION RE : RÉPONSES INCOMPLÈTES AUX DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

Questions de la SODRAC à la Société Radio-Canada (SRC)

Questions 3, 9, 12, 20, 24, 32, 33, 36, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56 et 62 à 98

Si on se fonde sur les documents dont la Commission dispose, l'état du dossier d'échange de renseignements dans la présente affaire est lamentable. La responsabilité semble en revenir tant à la SODRAC qu'à la SRC.

D'une part, il semble que la SODRAC ait demandé une quantité nettement excessive de renseignements. Il est inconcevable que répondre à une demande raisonnable de renseignements dans une affaire comme celle-ci nécessite la mise en place d'une équipe de 12 personnes comme le prétend la SRC. La Commission n'a aucune intention de permettre les « discoveries » à l'américaine.

D'autre part, la SRC a clairement choisi de faire fi de l'échéancier de la présente affaire. La date de production des réponses aux demandes de renseignements était le 6 novembre, pas le 11 décembre. Il importe peu à la Commission que le dossier soit complexe. La SRC a insisté être en mesure de se conformer à l'échéancier alors même que la SODRAC mettait cette capacité en doute. Les assurances de la SRC ont été prises en compte avant de faire droit à la demande de la SRC d'entendre son affaire en même temps qu'Astral. La SRC voudra tenir compte de ce fait pour
le reste du processus si elle ne veut pas voir les délais dont elle dispose être raccourcis pour permettre à la fois de commencer les audiences en temps et de donner à la SODRAC l'occasion de faire valoir ses moyens.

En tout état de cause, la SRC verra, de façon péremptoire, à fournir tout ce qu'elle s'est engagée à fournir d'ici le 11 décembre 2009.

Questions de la SODRAC à Astral

18 : Ce qu'Astral offredevrait suffire, dans la mesure où elle applique correctement le tarif 22 de la SOCAN (le tarif parle de consultations de page audio, pas de consultation de pages musicales).

28 : L'opposition de la SODRAC est rejetée. Astral pourra subséquemment verser au dossier des documents qui seraient visés par la question 28 mais qui ne sont pas en la possession d'Astral.

Questions des opposantes à la SODRAC

27 : La SQDRAC doit fournir le document intitulé « Présentation du bilan » pour les exercices 2006-2007, 2007-2008 et 2008-2009 dans le mesure où ces documents existent. Ce que la SODRAC offre à l'égard des membres ayant reçu certains niveaux de redevances suffit.

34 : Le pourquoi des distinctions que la SODRAC pratique est peu ou pas pertinent. Cela dit, la SODRAC s'étant engagée à répondre, elle devra s'exécuter.

46 : La SODRAC n'a pas à produire la pièce 46J avec les notes personnelles de Me Matteau. Comme Me Matteau n'a pas participé aux négociations et que la SODRAC n'en a pas reçu copie, ces notes ne sont pas pertinentes.


 

5 novembre 2009

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint l'ordonnance de confidentialité de la Commission portant sur les renseignements échangés au cours de la procédure de demandes de renseignements pour lesquels un traitement confidentiel peut être exigé.

Attachment : Confidentiality order - Ordonnance de confidentialité.pdf


 

13 octobre 2009

Ceci fait suite à la demande des parties de modifier la décision provisoire rendue le 31 mars dernier par la Commission dans le dossier cité en rubrique.

Vous trouverez ci-joint les motifs des modifications demandées.

Nous espérons le tout conforme.

Attachment : Interim decision modified - Decision provisoire modifiee.pdf


 

8 septembre 2009

Me Nitoslawski,

Votre réplique à la requête de la SODRAC du 1er septembre dernier doit être déposée auprès de la Commission au plus tard vendredi, 25 septembre 2009.


 

24 juillet 2009

Suite à la décision de la Commission du 21 juillet dernier, vous trouverez ci-joint la directive sur la procédure.

Nous vous prions de noter que la version électronique de la preuve (sur CD-ROM, DVD ou clé USB, et non plus par courriel) doit être déposée auprès de la Commission en même temps que les copies papier, à la date fixée pour ce faire. Vous devez aussi vous assurer que l'autre partie reçoive les versions papier et électronique le même jour que les documents sont déposés auprès de la Commission.

Attachment : Directive on procedure.pdf


 

21 juillet 2009

RULING OF THE BOARD

CMPDA's application of June 10, 2009 to be granted intervenor status is denied.

DECISION DE LA COMMISSION

La demande de la CMPDA du 10 juin 2009 visant à obtenir le statut d'intervenante est rejetée.

21 juillet 2009

À noter que dans l'échéancier soumis plus tôt, le nom de la SRC/CBC avait été omis pour le dépôt de la réponse l'énoncé de cause de la SODRAC] le vendredi 9 avril 2010. La correction a été apportée ci-dessous.

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

La demande de jonction des affaires citées en rubrique est accordée. Des motifs suivront.

L'affaire procédera conformément à l'échéancier suivant, qui avait été convenu entre les parties dans l'affaire SODRAC c. Groupe Astral.

Dépôt des demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 11 septembre 2009

Dépôt des oppositions aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 25 septembre 2009

Dépôt des répliques aux oppositions : au plus tard vendredi, 9 octobre 2009

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Dépôt des réponses aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 6 novembre 2009

Dépôt des requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard mardi, 17 novembre 2009

Dépôt des répliques aux requêtes : au plus tard vendredi, 27 novembre 2009

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Dépôt des réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 11 décembre 2009

Dépôt de l'énoncé de cause de la SODRAC : au plus tard vendredi, 5 février 2010

Dépôt de la réponse de la SRC/CBC et d'Astral Media inc. : au plus tard vendredi, 9 avril 2010

Dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC : au plus tard vendredi, 14 mai 2010

Conférence préparatoire : [à déterminer, si nécessaire]

Début de l'audience : mardi, 1er juin 2010 à 10h00 à la salle d'audience de la Commission.

La directive sur la procédure suivra sous peu.


 

31 mars 2009

La décision provisoire de la Commission portant sur le dossier en arbitrage SODRAC c. SRC (Reproduction d'ouvres musicales) est maintenant affichée sur le site de la Commission sous la rubrique « Quoi de Neuf - Décisions récentes » au lien suivant: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/arbitration-arbitrage-f.html.



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (ADISQ c. SODRAC)


 

28 mai 2013

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

À la suite de la réception de la lettre du 23 mai 2013 des procureurs de la SODRAC faisant état d'une entente intervenue entre les parties, et du dépôt de cette entente le 27 mai 2013, la Commission confirme être dessaisie de la demande d'arbitrage de la SODRAC du 19 mars 2009 dans l'affaire précitée, conformément au paragraphe 70.3(1) de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.


 

11 mars 2009

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

La SODRAC a jusqu'au vendredi 20 mars 2009 pour répondre à la demande d'arbitrage de l'ADISQ ainsi qu'à la demande de licence provisoire. L'ADISQ sera avisée du délai dont elle dispose pour répondre à l'éventuelle demande d'arbitrage de la SODRAC dès qu'elle aura été déposée.

Je tiens à attirer votre attention sur un point important qui pourrait mettre en cause la saisine même de la Commission. En 1996, la Commission a énoncé le principe voulant que la capacité d'une association à agir pour le compte de ses membres n'est pas la même en matière d'arbitrage qu'en matière tarifaire :

« La demande de l'AUCC est formulée au nom de toutes les institutions universitaires ou collégiales détenant une licence de CANCOPY venant à expiration le 31 août 1996. Toutefois, comme l'AUCC n'est pas une utilisatrice éventuelle de cette licence, ce n'est qu'à titre de représentant d'utilisateurs qu'elle peut agir. Le régime d'arbitrage n'est pas un régime de tarification universelle; la décision éventuelle lie uniquement ceux qui sont directement impliqués dans le processus, que ce soit personnellement ou par un mandataire en bonne et due forme. Seule l'University of Lethbridge a ainsi mandaté l'AUCC. Par conséquent, seules cette université et WLU seront directement affectées par l'issue de cette affaire. » Voir: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/1996/19960913-a-b.pdf

L'application de ce principe en l'espèce entraînerait les conséquences suivantes.

D'une part, à moins que le contrat d'adhésion des membres à I'ADISQ n'établisse sa capacité pour agir en leur nom en matière d'arbitrage devant la Commission, il faudrait que I'ADISQ soit expressément mandataire d'au moins un de ses membres avant même de faire parvenir à la SODRAC l'avis d'intention de procéder à l'arbitrage prévu à l'article 70.2. L'avis du 6 mars n'aurait aucun effet juridique.

D'autre part, à moins encore une fois que le contrat d'adhésion des membres à l'ADISQ n'établisse sa capacité pour agir en leur nom en matière d'arbitrage devant la Commission, l'expédition par la SODRAC d'un avis d'intention à l'ADISQ ne respecterait pas la condition préalable prévue a l'article 70.2. Il faudrait que l'avis soit expédié aux utilisateurs éventuels et que la SODRAC dépose une demande d'arbitrage conjointe à l'égard de chacun d'entre eux.

En l'absence de ces documents, on ne peut garantir que chacun des utilisateurs que l'ADISQ entend représenter sera lié par les conclusions de la Commission.

L'alternative suivante s'offre à vous.

La SODRAC pourrait expédier à chacun des membres de l'ADISQ un avis d'intention de procéder à l'arbitrage pour l'ensemble des utilisations visées tant dans l'avis d'intention de la SODRAC que dans la demande d'arbitrage de l'ADISQ. Un mandat formel serait utile mais non nécessaire; le consentement des membres à être représentés par l'ADISQ pourrait s'inférer de leur comportement ultérieur.

L'ADISQ pourrait par contre obtenir de ses membres des mandats rétroactifs l'autorisant à agir pour leur compte pour l'ensemble des utilisations visées dans les demandes de l'ADISQ et de la SODRAC.

Une fois la qualité de représentant de l'ADISQ établie, chaque partie pourra ratifier les gestes posés par l'autre avant cette date, ce qui éviterait des délais inutiles.

L'avocat général de la Commission, Mario Bouchard, est à votre disposition si vous désirez davantage d'éclaircissements sur la question.



Demande de fixation des redevances et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. Astral) 2013


 

17 avril 2014flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les parties, Bell Media inc., Corus Entertainment inc. et Astral Media inc., peuvent répondre à la demande ci-joint de la SODRAC pour des licences provisoires (Bell Media inc. et Corus Entertainment inc.) au plus tard le vendredi 25 avril 2014. La SODRAC peut déposer sa réplique au plus tard le vendredi 2 mai 2014.

Attachment : Licences provisoires chaînes Astral - 1er avril 2014 Lettre à Gilles McDougall.pdf


 

17 avril 2014flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Suite au jugement en date du 31 mars 2014 de la Cour d'appel fédérale dans les dossiers A-516-12 et A-527-12, la Commission a révisé les licences SODRAC c. CBC/SRC et SODRAC c. Astral. Les licences révisées se trouvent à l'adresse suivante : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/arbitration-arbitrage-f.html.


 

24 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Astral peut répondre à la requête ci-jointe au plus tard le mercredi 31 juillet 2013. SODRAC pourra répliquer, si nécessaire, au plus tard le lundi 5 août 2013.

Attachment : 22 juillet 2013 Lettre à Gilles McDougall.pdf


 

11 février 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Astral peut répondre à la requête de la SODRAC ci-jointe au plus tard le vendredi 22 février 2013. La SODRAC pourra déposer une réplique au plus tard le vendredi 8 mars 2013.

Attachment: 4 février 2013 - Demande d'arbitrage - SODRAC c. ASTRAL.pdf



Demande de fixation des droits et modalités d'une licence (SODRAC c. MusiquePlus inc. [MusiquePlus et MusiMax]) (70.2-2009-02)


 

27 juillet 2010

À la suite de la réception de la lettre du 23 juillet 2010 des procureurs de la SODRAC faisant état d'une entente intervenue entre les parties, la Commission confirme être dessaisie de la demande, conformément au paragraphe 70.3(1) de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.


 

18 mai 2010

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Cette décision fait suite à la requête du 23 avril 2010 de MusiquePlus pour réponses insatisfaisantes. La SODRAC doit fournir le document qui fait suite au tableau d'analyses d'utilisation du répertoire faites à partir de la liste de membres existante dans le système au moment de l'analyse (25 novembre 2008), si ce document existe, et sous réserve de ce qui suit.

Si la SODRAC veut se prévaloir du privilège relatif au litige, il lui faudra produire à la Commission le tableau qu'elle a déjà fourni à MusiquePlus et le document qui y fait suite tout en expliquant en quoi sa fourniture divulguerait le plan de match de la SODRAC. La SODRAC voudra alors porter une attention particulière à la possibilité qu'en divulguant le fait que le tableau « avait évolué », la SODRAC ait renoncé au privilège à l'égard du document modifié, si tant est qu'il existe.

Si la Commission juge qu'il peut y avoir matière à privilège, elle accordera à MusiquePlus l'occasion de faire valoir ses moyens. Sinon, elle ordonnera la divulgation sans autre étape.


 

29 mars 2010

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

À la demande des parties, le calendrier des procédures est modifié comme suit:

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard lundi, 12 avril 2010

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux requêtes: au plus tard vendredi, 23 avril 2010

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard vendredi, 7 mai 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de la SODRAC : au plus tard jeudi, 17 juin 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de MusiquePlus inc. : au plus tard vendredi, 8 octobre 2010

Dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC : au plus tard lundi, 1er novembre 2010

[Conférence préparatoire: à déterminer]

Début de l'audience: mardi, 16 novembre 2010 à 10h00 à la salle d'audience de la Commission.


 

15 mars 2010

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Vous trouverez ci-joint l'ordonnance de confidentialité portant sur les renseignements échangés au cours de la procédure de demandes de renseignements pour lesquels un traitement confidentiel peut être exigé.

Attachment : Ordonnance de confidentialité.pdf


 

15 janvier 2010

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Privilège relatif au litige

La Commission se permet de rappeler certains des principes qu'elle a choisi d'appliquer en la matière.

1) Devant la Commission, la divulgation devrait être la règle; l'invocation du privilège relatif au litige devrait être surveillée étroitement.

2) Le privilège relatif au litige cherche avant tout à protéger le plan de match du procureur. On ne peut l'invoquer à l'égard de ce qui n'est pas susceptible de faire connaître ce plan.

3) La Commission applique le privilège aux documents existants uniquement si en les révélant, ou en révélant le fait que le procureur les détient, on risque de divulguer le plan de match du procureur et que la confection ou copie implique une copie sélective ou découle d'une recherche ou de l'utilisation de compétences ou de connaissances de la part du procureur. Ainsi, par exemple, si le client a en sa possession un document (autre qu'un document que le procureur a fourni au
client), il doit être fourni et ce, même si le procureur en a une copie, à moins que le fait même de divulguer que le client a une copie risque de dévoiler le plan de match du procureur.

4) Le participant qui invoque le privilège a le fardeau d'établir par prépondérance de preuve soit (a) que le renseignement a été établi principalement aux fins de l'instance ou, (b) s'il s'agit d'un renseignement qui existait déjà, qu'il a été obtenu principalement aux fins de l'instance et que sa communication divulguerait probablement le plan de match du procureur.

5) Le participant qui invoque le privilège doit fournir à la personne qui a formulé la demande pertinente une liste des renseignements pour lesquels le privilège est invoqué ainsi qu'une courte description du renseignement et des motifs au soutien de l'invocation du privilège. Le participant qui croit que le simple fait de savoir que son procureur a accès au renseignement risque de divulguer le plan de match de ce dernier fournit à la personne qui a formulé la demande pertinente le plus de renseignements possible sans pour autant faire échec au privilège.

6) Après avoir reçu la liste des renseignements pour lesquels le privilège est invoqué, la personne qui a formulé la demande pertinente peut demander à la Commission de trancher sur la légitimité des prétentions de la personne qui invoque le privilège. Cette dernière doit alors remettre à la Commission copie des renseignements pertinents afin que celle-ci puisse trancher.

Questions adressées à MusiguePlus

Question 13 : dans la mesure où MusiquePlus n'entend pas mettre en cause sa capacité de payer, l'opposition est maintenue, sauf à l'égard de l'offre de contenu sur Internet. Cette offre n'a jamais fait l'objet d'un examen et il est donc légitime que la SQDRAC cherche à en savoir davantage à ce sujet.

Question 14 : l'opposition est rejetée. L'information concerne une période de temps visée par le projet de licence.

Question 17 : l'opposition est rejetée. L'information pourrait servir à décider de l'ampleur de l'assiette tarifaire.

Question 60 : l'opposition est rejetée. La réponse permettra à la SODRAC de connaître la pleine étendue de l'utilisation que MusiquePlus fait de ses droits.

Questions adressées à la SODRAC

Question 12 : l'opposition est rejetée.

Questions 47, 49, 65 : l'opposition est rejetée. Pour ce qui est du privilège relatif au litige, voirles commentaires qui précèdent. Pour ce qui est de l'information que la SODRAC a obtenue de MusiquePlus, la Commission accepte les motifs avancés par MusiquePlus pour que cette information lui soit fournie.


 

29 octobre 2009

Suite à l'avis de la Commission du 28 octobre, vous trouverez ci-joint la Directive sur la procédure portant sur le dossier cité en rubrique.

Attachment : Directive sur la procédure.pdf


 

28 octobre 2009

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission adopte le calendrier des procédures suivant proposé par les parties le 20 octobre dernier.

Demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 20 novembre 2009

Oppositions aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 4 décembre 2009

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux oppositions aux demandes de
Renseignements : au plus tard vendredi, 18 décembre 2009

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard lundi, 15 mars 2010

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard jeudi, 1er avril 2010 *

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux requêtes : au plus tard mercredi, 14 avril 2010

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard mercredi, 28 avril 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de la SODRAC : au plus tard lundi, 7 juin 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de MusiquePlus inc. : au plus tard vendredi, 8 octobre 2010 **

Dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC : au plus tard lundi, 1er novembre 2010

[Conférence préparatoire : à déterminer]

Début de l'audience : mardi, 16 novembre 2010 à 10h00 à la salle d'audience de la Commission.

La directive sur la procédure suivra sous peu.

* Le 2 avril 2010, proposé par les parties, est un jour férié: Vendredi Saint.
** Le 10 octobre 2010, proposé par les parties, est un dimanche et le lendemain, 11 octobre, est un jour férié: Action de grâces.



Arbitrage - SODRAC c. ADISQ (70.2-1999-1)


 

9 février 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated February 9, 2000. Re: Traitement confidentiel - Réponses aux demandes de renseignements.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated February 9, 2000.pdf


 

2 février 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated February 2, 2000. Re: Oppositions aux demandes de renseignement.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated February 2, 2000.pdf


 

9 décembre 1999

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated December 9, 1999. Re: Revised Schedule of Proceedings.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated December 9, 1999.pdf


 

1 décembre 1999

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated December 1, 1999. Re: Directive on Procedure.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated December 1, 1999.pdf


 

18 novembre 1999

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Objet: Dossier 70.2-1999-1 - Demande en vertu de l'article 70.2 - SODRAC et ADISQ.pdf

La présente confirme que l'audience sur l'affaire citée en rubrique débutera le mardi, 25 avril 2000 à 10h00 et non le 4 avril 2000 tel que mentionné dans notre avis du 1er octobre dernier.



Arbitrage - SODRAC c. MusiquePlus Inc. (70.2-1999-2)


 

8 mars 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated March 8, 2000. Re: Réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated March 8, 2000.pdf


 

14 février 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated February 14, 2000. Re: Prolongation de délai pour répondre aux demandes de renseignements

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated February 14, 2000.pdf


 

9 février 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated February 9, 2000. Re: Traitement confidentiel - Réponses aux demandes de renseignements.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated February 9, 2000.pdf


 

2 février 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated February 2, 2000. Re: Oppositions aux demandes de renseignement.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated February 2, 2000.pdf


 

6 janvier 2000

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please find enclosed the Letter of the Board dated January 6, 2000. Re: Directive on Procedure.

Attachment: Letter of the Board dated January 6, 2000.pdf



Arbitrage - AVLA v. MusiSélect Inc (70.2-2005-1)


 

18 avril 2006

ORDER OF THE BOARD

AVLA shall file with the Board and serve on MusiSélect inc., no later than Friday, May 5, 2006, a copy of the standard agreement by which AVLA members authorize AVLA to issue licences on their behalf. AVLA shall also file with the Board, by that same date, copy of ail documents filed to date in Federal Court Action T-648-06.

MusiSélect shall indicate to the Board and to AVLA, no later than Friday, May S, 2006, whether it intends respond to AVLA's arguments.

The Board will then decide on its course of action in this matter,

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

AVLA doit déposer à la Commission et signifier à MusiSélect inc., au plus tard le vendredi 5 mai 2006, copie de l'entente-type en vertu de laquelle les membres d'AVLA autorisent cette dernière à délivrer des licences pour leur compte. AVLA doit aussi déposer à la Commission, au plus tard à la même date, copie de tous les documents déposés à ce jour dans l'affaire T-648-06 devant la Cour fédérale.

MusiSélect doit indiquer à la Commission et à AVLA, au plus tard le vendredi 5 mai 2006, si elle entend répondre aux prétentions d'AVLA.

La Commission décidera ensuite de la marche à suivre dans cette affaire.


 

13 octobre 2005

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

This is in response to Mr. McCormack's e-mail of October 13 reproduced below. The Board can issue interim decisions on application. Once such an application is withdrawn, the Board is no longer seized of it.

Note: In future, please ensure that all correspondence sent to the Board in connection to the above-reference filed is copied to the other party.

La présente fait suite au courriel de M. McCormack du 13 octobre, reproduit ci-dessous. La Commission a le pouvoir d'émettre des décisions provisoires sur demande. Une fois la demande retirée, la Commission n'en est plus saisie.

Note: À l'avenir, veuillez-vous assurer que l'autre partie reçoit copie de toute correspondance expédiée à la Commission en rapport avec l'affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

-----Message d'origine-----

De: Stuart McCormack

Envoyé: le 13 octobre, 2005 15:03

À : Claude Majeau

Objet: Avla

I would note that the board has not to my knowledge either responded or issued an order in respect of MusiSelects withdrawal of its request for an interim order.


 

13 octobre 2005

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As per the Board's notice of October 11, 2005, please find attached the Directive on Procedure and relevant appendices.

We draw your attention to the third paragraph in section B.2 (Interrogatories), which reads as follows:

"The Board intends to ensure that the burden inherent in the interrogatories pro cess be consistent with the importance of the issues raised, given, among other things, that this matter is not one leading to the certification of a tariff that applies to a whole category of users."

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Conformément à l'avis de la Commission du 11 octobre 2005, veuillez trouver ci-joint la directive sur la procédure et les annexes pertinentes. Nous attirons votre attention au troisième paragraphe de la section B.2 (Demandes de renseignements) qui se lit comme suit:

«La Commission entend faire en sorte que le fardeau qu'impose le processus d'échange de renseignements soit proportionnel aux enjeux soulevés, compte tenu, entre autres, qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une affaire visant l'homologation d'un tarif applicable à l'ensemble d'une catégorie d'utilisateurs.»


 

11 octobre 2005

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the parties' correspondence of October 3, 2005, the Board hereby confirms the agreed upon schedule as follows:

Filing of interrogatories: no later than Friday, October 21, 2005

Filing of objections to interrogatories: no later than Friday, October 28, 2005

Filing of replies to the objections: no later than Wednesday, November 2, 2005

[Ruling of the Board on objections]

Filing of responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, November 18, 2005

Filing of motions re: unsatisfactory/incomplete responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, December 2, 2005

Filing of replies to the motions: no later than Friday, December 9, 2005

[Ruling of the Board on motions]

Filing of complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, December 23, 200S

Filing of MusiSélect's case: no later than Friday, January 13, 2006

Filing of AVLA's case: no later than Friday, February 17, 2006

Filing of MusiSélect's supplementary case: no later than Friday, March 3, 2006

Beginning of hearing: [to be determined]

The Directive on Procedure will follow shortly.

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Suite à la correspondance des parties du 3 octobre dernier, la Commission confirme le calendrier des procédures sur lequel elles se sont entendues, soit :

Dépôt des demandes de renseignements: au plus tard le vendredi 21 octobre 2005

Dépôt des oppositions aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard le vendredi 28 octobre 2005

Dépôt des répliques aux oppositions: au plus tard le mercredi 2 novembre 2005

[Ordonnance de la Commission sur les oppositions]

Dépôt des réponses aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard le vendredi 18 novembre 2005

Dépôt des requêtes re : réponses insatisfaisantes/incomplètes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard le vendredi 2 décembre 2005

Dépôt des répliques aux requêtes : au plus tard le vendredi 9 décembre 2005

[Ordonnance de la Commission sur les requêtes]

Dépôt des réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard le vendredi 23 décembre 2005

Dépôt de la preuve de MusiSélect : au plus tard le vendredi 13 janvier 2006

Dépôt de la preuve d'AVLA : au plus tard le vendredi 17 février 2006

Dépôt de la preuve supplémentaire de MusiSélect : au plus tard le vendredi 3 mars 2006

Début de l'audience: [à déterminer]

La directive sur la procédure suivra sous peu.


 

13 septembre 2005

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

This is further to the application filed by MusiSélect inc. on July 4, 2005 pursuant to subsection 70.2(1) of the Copyright Act, and the response of AVLA Audio Video Licensing Agency Inc. dated July 11, 2005.

Jurisdictional Issue

The jurisdictional issue raised by AVLA requires a consideration of whether the conditions precedent to the application of the relevant provisions have been fulfilled; this requires evidence. The issue will therefore be examined at the same time as the substance of the matter.

Application for Interim Decision

MusiSélect inc. asks for an interim licence for the duration of the proceedings without specifying the price of the licence or the related terms and conditions. The Board takes for granted that the conditions sought are those of the final licence. If not, MusiSélect inc. shall specify the conditions sought no later than by noon on Wednesday, September 14, 2005.

AVLA may make its arguments against the issuance of an interim licence no later than on Wednesday, September 21, 2005.

Process for the Examination of the Substantive Issues

MusiSélect inc. has asked that its substantive application be examined according to a less cumbersome process than usual. The Board is of the view that this matter is well-suited to a lighter examination process that takes into account the relatively small amounts involved while still allowing for enough information to be gathered to lead to a reasoned decision. Parties have until Monday, October 3, 2005 to file a joint proposal. Absent such a proposal, parties shall file their suggestions with the Board by the same date.

AVIS DE LA COMMISION

La présente fait suite à la demande de MusiSélect inc. déposée auprès de la Commission du droit d'auteur le 4 juillet dernier en vertu du paragraphe 70.2(1) de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, et la réplique de A VLA Audio Video Licensing Agency Inc. datée du 11 juillet 2005.

Question juridictionnelle

La question juridictionnelle soulevée par AVLA nécessite qu'on établisse si les conditions d'application des positions pertinentes sont remplies, ce qui ne saurait se faire sans preuve. La question sera donc examinée en même temps que le fond de l'affaire.

Demande de décision provisoire

MusiSélect inc. demande une licence provisoire pour toute la durée des procédures sans toutefois préciser le prix de cette licence ou les modalités recherchées. La Commission présume que les modalités recherchées sont celles de la licence définitive. Dans le cas contraire, MusiSélect inc. devra préciser les conclusions recherchées au plus tard à midi le mercredi 14 septembre 2005.

AVLA a jusqu'au mercredi 21 septembre 2005 pour faire valoir ses moyens à l'encontre de la demande de licence provisoire.

Processus d'examen de la demande au fond

MusiSélect inc. recherche la mise au point d'un processus d'examen allégé de sa demande au fond. La Commission est d'avis que la présente instance se prête à un processus d'examen allégé, qui tienne compte du caractère modeste des montants en jeu tout en permettant de recueillir l'information nécessaire à la prise d'une décision éclairée. La Commission accorde aux parties jusqu'au lundi 3 octobre 2005 pour lui soumettre une proposition conjointe. À défaut de proposition conjointe, les parties devront d'ici là faire parvenir à la Commission leurs suggestions.



Arbitrage - AVLA v. MusiSélect Inc (70.2-2009-1)


 

11 juin 2010

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission accepte les modifications à l'échéancier proposées par les parties.

De : Bursanescu, Silviu
Envoyé: 11 juin 2010 13:27
À : Gilles McDougall
Cc: Nitoslawski_Marek; Mikus_Jean-Philippe; Bertrand Lisane; Chantal Poirier
Objet: Dossier MusiquePlus

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

Nous confirmons qu'après discussion les parties ont convenu des modifications suivantes à l'échéancier dans le dossier MusiquePlus, que nous vous soumettons respectueusement:

  • dépôt de la preuve de la SODRAC: 29 juin (au lieu du 17 juin)
  • dépôt de la preuve de MP: 15 octobre (au lieu du 8 octobre)
  • dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC: 1 er novembre, tel qu'originellement convenu.

Les audiences débuteraient le 16 novembre.

En espérant le tout conforme, veuillez recevoir, monsieur le Secrétaire général, mes sentiments distingués,

Silviu Bursanescu


 

22 mars 2010

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

À la demande des parties, le calendrier des procédures est modifié comme suit:

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard lundi, 12 avril 2010

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux requêtes: au plus tard vendredi, 23 avril 2010

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements: au plus tard vendredi, 7 mai 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de la SODRAC : au plus tard jeudi, 17 juin 2010

Dépôt de la preuve de MusiquePlus inc. : au plus tard vendredi, 8 octobre 2010

Dépôt de la réplique de la SODRAC : au plus tard lundi, 1er novembre 2010

[Conférence préparatoire: à déterminer]

Début de l'audience: mardi, 16 novembre 2010 à 10h00 à la salle d'audience de la Commission.



ARTISTI (Mise à la disposition du public et la reproduction de prestations fixées sur enregistrement sonore par les services de musique en ligne) 2016-2018


 

26 octobre 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-062]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le 18 août 2015, la Commission transmettait à Artisti les oppositions reçues à l’égard des deux projets de tarifs cités en rubrique. Le 30 septembre 2015, Artisti faisait parvenir à la Commission et aux opposants ses réponses aux oppositions. Ces réponses comportaient plusieurs commentaires et requêtes, essentiellement de deux types :

  1. Requêtes en radiation de certaines sections spécifiques des lettres d’opposition, au motif qu’aucun fait n’est allégué à leur soutien;
  2. Requêtes en exclusion de certains opposants aux affaires pertinentes, au motif qu’aucune justification n’est alléguée pour soutenir leur prétention d’être un utilisateur éventuel intéressé.

La Commission considère qu’il serait prématuré de disposer de ces requêtes maintenant. Les requêtes d’Artisti soulèvent des questions de fond sur lesquelles toutes les parties devraient avoir l’opportunité de commenter. Or, aucun processus formel portant sur les tarifs d’Artisti, seuls ou fusionnés avec d’autres, n’a encore été mis sur place. En outre, un des deux projets de tarifs d’Artisti, à l’égard des services de musique en ligne, ne pourra être examiné que lorsque la décision aura été rendue dans l’affaire présentement en délibéré visant les mêmes services de musique en ligne (Tarifs pour les services de musique en ligne - CSI (2011-2013), SOCAN 22.A (2011-2013), SODRAC 6 (Vidéos de musique, 2010-2013)).

La Commission suspend donc l’examen des requêtes d’Artisti pour l’instant, et en disposera en temps opportun.


 

18 septembre 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-054]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

Le 20 août 2015, Apple Canada Inc. et Apple Inc. (« Apple ») ont demandé la permission d’intervenir avec pleins droits procéduraux dans l’examen de l’affaire de la Commission nommée en rubrique. Apple dit avoir omis de s’y opposer par inadvertance.

L’ADISQ, l’Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs, les Networks (Bell, Google, Québecor, Rogers, Shaw, Yahoo! Canada) et Sirius XM ont appuyé la demande d’Apple. La SRC et Music Canada, opposants au tarif, n’ont pas répondu.

ArtistI ne s’oppose pas au statut d’intervenant d’Apple, mais est d’avis que ses droits devraient être limités. Faire autrement ferait fi des délais devant être respectés par tout opposant potentiel. ArtistI propose qu’Apple puisse assister aux parties non confidentielles de l’audition et puisse déposer des observations écrites. Apple ne devrait toutefois pas pouvoir demander ou se voir transmettre toute documentation émanant de quelque partie; présenter une preuve; contre-interroger des témoins; soulever des objections ou faire des représentations verbales durant l’audience; assister aux parties confidentielles de l’audience; présenter des observations écrites en réponse à celles d’ArtistI.

Apple réplique que les restrictions que propose ArtistI limiteraient de manière indue sa participation à l’audience et en réduiraient l’utilité potentielle. Apple ajoute qu’elle avait manifestement l’intention de s’opposer à ce tarif, étant donné qu’elle s’est opposée à tous les autres tarifs visant les services de musique en ligne pour la période pertinente, et qu’elle a clairement informé la Commission qu’elle avait dépassé par inadvertance l’échéance pour s’opposer.

Essentiellement pour les raisons évoquées par Apple dans sa réplique, la Commission accepte la demande d’Apple et lui permet d’intervenir dans l’examen du tarif nommé en rubrique, avec les mêmes droits et obligations d’un opposant. Apple est un joueur important dans l’industrie des services de musique en ligne. L’empêcher de participer pleinement dans le processus priverait la Commission d’informations importantes dont elle a besoin pour établir un tarif juste et équitable.


 

1er septembre 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-051]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La demande de prorogation de délai d’ARTISTI citée ci-dessous en date du 31 août 2015 est accordée. Conséquemment, les parties peuvent maintenant répondre à la requête en intervention d’Apple dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique au plus tard le vendredi 11 septembre 2015. Apple pourra répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 18 septembre 2015.


 

29 août 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-049]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les parties peuvent répondre à la requête en intervention d’Apple, ci-jointe, dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique au plus tard le vendredi 4 septembre 2015. Apple peut répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 11 septembre 2015.

Veuillez noter que les opposants dans ce dossier sont les suivants :

  • ADISQ;
  • Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs;
  • CBC/SRC;
  • Music Canada;
  • “Networks” (Bell, Google, Québecor, Rogers, Shaw, Yahoo! Canada);
  • Sirius XM Canada.

Pièce jointe : Goodmans – Letter to the Board dated August 20, 2015


 

12 juin 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-035]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le projet de tarif des redevances à percevoir par ARTISTI pour la fixation des prestations et la reproduction et la distribution des prestations fixées d’artistes-interprètes sous forme de phonogrammes pour les années 2016 à 2018 sera publié dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 13 juin 2015. Le projet de tarif est maintenant postulé sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer aux projets de tarif est le mercredi 12 août 2015.



ARTISTI (Fixation of Performances and the Reproduction and Distribution of Performances Fixed by Performers in the Form of Phonograms) 2016-2018


 

26 octobre, 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-062]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le 18 août 2015, la Commission transmettait à Artisti les oppositions reçues à l’égard des deux projets de tarifs cités en rubrique. Le 30 septembre 2015, Artisti faisait parvenir à la Commission et aux opposants ses réponses aux oppositions. Ces réponses comportaient plusieurs commentaires et requêtes, essentiellement de deux types :

  1. Requêtes en radiation de certaines sections spécifiques des lettres d’opposition, au motif qu’aucun fait n’est allégué à leur soutien;
  2. Requêtes en exclusion de certains opposants aux affaires pertinentes, au motif qu’aucune justification n’est alléguée pour soutenir leur prétention d’être un utilisateur éventuel intéressé.

La Commission considère qu’il serait prématuré de disposer de ces requêtes maintenant. Les requêtes d’Artisti soulèvent des questions de fond sur lesquelles toutes les parties devraient avoir l’opportunité de commenter. Or, aucun processus formel portant sur les tarifs d’Artisti, seuls ou fusionnés avec d’autres, n’a encore été mis sur place. En outre, un des deux projets de tarifs d’Artisti, à l’égard des services de musique en ligne, ne pourra être examiné que lorsque la décision aura été rendue dans l’affaire présentement en délibéré visant les mêmes services de musique en ligne (Tarifs pour les services de musique en ligne - CSI (2011-2013), SOCAN 22.A (2011-2013), SODRAC 6 (Vidéos de musique, 2010-2013)).

La Commission suspend donc l’examen des requêtes d’Artisti pour l’instant, et en disposera en temps opportun.


 

12 juin 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-034]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le projet de tarif des redevances à percevoir par ARTISTI pour la fixation des prestations et la reproduction et la distribution des prestations fixées d’artistes-interprètes sous forme de phonogrammes pour les années 2016 à 2018 sera publié dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 13 juin 2015. Le projet de tarif est maintenant postulé sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer au projet de tarif est le mercredi 12 août 2015.

Bien à vous,



CMRRA (Tarif 4) – Vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (2017)


 

27 mai 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-043]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Les projets de tarif des redevances à percevoir par la CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2017 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 28 mai 2016. Les projets de tarif sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s’opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 27 juillet 2016.



CMRRA (Tarif 5) – Stations de télévision commerciales (2017)


 

27 mai 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-043]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Les projets de tarif des redevances à percevoir par la CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2017 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 28 mai 2016. Les projets de tarif sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s’opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 27 juillet 2016.



CMRRA (Tarif 6) – Services de télévision de la SRC (2017)


 

27 mai 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-043]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Les projets de tarif des redevances à percevoir par la CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2017 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 28 mai 2016. Les projets de tarif sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s’opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 27 juillet 2016.



CMRRA (Tarif 7) – Services audiovisuels (2017)


 

27 mai 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-043]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Les projets de tarif des redevances à percevoir par la CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2017 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 28 mai 2016. Les projets de tarif sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s’opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 27 juillet 2016.



CMRRA (Tarif 4) – Vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (2016)


 

29 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-031]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2016 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), par les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), par les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 30 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 29 juillet 2015.



CMRRA (Tarif 5) – Stations de télévision commerciales (2016)


 

29 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-031]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2016 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), par les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), par les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 30 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 29 juillet 2015.



CMRRA (Tarif 6) – Services de télévision de la SRC (2016)


 

29 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-031]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2016 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), par les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), par les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 30 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 29 juillet 2015.



CMRRA (Tarif 7) – Services audiovisuels (2016)


 

29 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-031]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada en 2016 pour les vidéos de musique, services de musique en ligne (tarif 4), par les stations de télévision commerciales (tarif 5), par les services de télévision de la SRC (tarif 6) et les services audiovisuels (tarif 7) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 30 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 29 juillet 2015.



CSI – Commercial Radio Stations (2017)


 

May 20, 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-041]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2017), les stations de radio non commerciales (2017) et les services de musique en ligne (2017) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 21 mai 2016. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 20 juillet 2016.



CSI – Non-Commercial Radio Stations (2017)


 

May 20, 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-041]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2017), les stations de radio non commerciales (2017) et les services de musique en ligne (2017) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 21 mai 2016. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 20 juillet 2016.



CSI – Online Music Services (2017)


 

May 20, 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-041]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2017), les stations de radio non commerciales (2017) et les services de musique en ligne (2017) seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 21 mai 2016. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 20 juillet 2016.



CSI – Commercial Radio Stations (2016)


 

22 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-028]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2016), les stations de radio non commerciales (2016) et les services de musique en ligne (2016) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales, au Canada, seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 23 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 22 juillet 2015.



CSI – Non-Commercial Radio Stations (2016)


 

22 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-028]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2016), les stations de radio non commerciales (2016) et les services de musique en ligne (2016) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales, au Canada, seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 23 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 22 juillet 2015.



CSI – Online Music Services (2016)


 

22 mai 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-028]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs des redevances à percevoir par CMRRA-SODRAC inc. (CSI) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales au Canada par les stations de radio commerciales (2016), les stations de radio non commerciales (2016) et les services de musique en ligne (2016) pour la reproduction d’œuvres musicales, au Canada, seront publiés dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 23 mai 2015. Les projets de tarifs sont maintenant affichés sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Tarifs proposés pour 2016 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer à chacun des projets de tarif est le mercredi 22 juillet 2015.



CSI - Online Music Services (2014)


 

20 août 2013

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Veuillez prendre note de ce qui suit:

De : Chantal Carbonneau
Envoyé : 20 août 2013 09:27
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Objet : Retrait des demandes d'intervention

Monsieur McDougall,

La présente vise à confirmer que CBC/Radio-Canada retire les demandes d'intervention déposées dans les dossiers suivants:

SODRAC - Tarif 5, 2014
SODRAC - Tarif 6, 2014
CSI - Services de Musique en Ligne - 2014

N'hésitez pas à communiquer avec la soussignée pour toute question relative au présent courriel.

Cordialement,

Chantal Carbonneau


 

1 août 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les parties peuvent répondre à la requête en intervention ci-jointe de la SRC dans le dossier précité au plus tard le vendredi 9 août 2013. La SRC peut répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 16 août 2013.

Les opposants au projet de tarif précité sont :

  • NCRA/ANREC, ARC et ARCQ
  • Apple Canada inc. et Apple inc.
  • Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs
  • Bell Canada, Rogers Communications inc., Quebecor Media inc. et Yahoo! Canada inc.
  • Pandora Media inc.

Attachment: 2013-07-25 Intervenor Status Request (CSI Proposed - 2014).pdf



CSI - Services de musique en ligne (2011-2013); SOCAN Tarif 22.A - Services de musique en ligne (2011-2013); SODRAC Tarif 6 - Services de musique en ligne, vidéos de musique (2010-2013)


 

19 janvier 2017

[CB-CDA 2017-007]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The request below is granted. The reply submissions shall be filed no later than Wednesday, February 15, 2017.


From: David Kent
Sent: January-19-17 8:52 AM
To: N. Campanella, C. Chisick, A. Thomas, C. Poirier, G. VanLoon, J. Kerr-Wilson, J. O'Hara; K. Simmons, L.Bertrand, L. Watt, M. Estabrooks, M. Koch, E. Mayzel, S. Baldassarra, T. Pinos
Cc: G. McDougall, Gilles
Subject: RE: Online Music Services - CSI (2011-2013); SOCAN Tariff 22.A (2011-2013) and SODRAC Tariff 6 (2010-2013) - Notice of the Board [CB-CDA 2017-004]

Dear Ms. Campanella,

Please bring this note to the attention of the Board. I write with the consent of all parties.

Thank you for sending Notice of the Board [CB-CDA 2017-004], issued in the above-referenced matter. The Notice adds a new filing deadline of January 23 for revised submissions on the draft tariff language and Board questions circulated late last year. The Notice postpones the deadline for reply submissions from January 27 to February 3.

Unfortunately, the new deadlines give rise to timing problems for counsel. In particular, the new window for additional “primary” comments, and the delayed date for filing replies, now place the reply window during a period when I will be travelling out of province and will have little opportunity to take client instructions or properly prepare a reply.

Accordingly, with the consent of all parties, this is to request an extension of the reply deadline until Wednesday, February 15, 2016. I note that a shorter extension would simply put other counsel in the same position in which the current deadline puts me.

Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if there are any questions.

David Kent


 

January 16, 2017

[CB-CDA 2017-004]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-004] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2017-01-16-CB-CDA 2017-004.pdf


 

22 décembre 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-100]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The request below is granted.

The Parties shall file any submissions no later than Friday, January 13, 2017. Any responses, if any, shall be made no later than Friday, January 27, 2017.


Gilles,

I am writing further to the Notice of the Board dated Friday, December 9 and the extension of time granted on Monday, December 12 in response to Mr. Kent’s e-mail of the same day.

Despite considerable diligence on the part of CSI, the complexity of the required review, combined with vacation schedules and other factors related to the holiday season, have made it difficult to generate a sufficient response to the Notice within the time allotted. Accordingly, I am writing with the consent of SOCAN, SODRAC, and the objectors to respectfully request that the Board extend the times set out in the Notice as follows:

- Parties’ submissions to be filed by Friday, January 13, 2017; and
- Responses, if any, to be filed by Friday, January 27, 2017.

I should add that counsel to at least one of the objectors has indicated that he will be departing for vacation early this afternoon. It would therefore be appreciated if the Board would consider and rule on this request as soon as possible today so that the parties can plan accordingly.

Many thanks and best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.

CMC


 

15 décembre 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-098]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

On December 9, 2017, in Notice 2016-097, the Board invited the Parties to comment on administrative provisions of a draft of the tariff. This included commenting on “whether the term ‘sample,’ as it appears in paragraph 3(3)(b) requires a definition.” However, in the draft tariff attached to the Notice, sections 3 and 4 were redacted in their entirety. On December 12, 2017, Mr. Kent alerted the Board of this issue.

The relevant textual context for the term “sample” is:

Despite [provision enumerating uses authorized by the tariff], this tariff does not […] authorize the reproduction of a work in a medley, for the purpose of creating a mashup, for use as a sample, or in association with a product, service, cause or institution.

The Board regrets this oversight, and thanks Mr. Kent for bringing this issue to the attention of the Board.


 

9 décembre 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-097]

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-097] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2016-12-09 - Consultation on Tariff Wording CB-CDA 2016-097.pdf


 

June 23, 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-060]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board grants the extensions requested by the Collectives on June 21, 2016 and adopts the remainder of the schedule of proceedings as follows:

The Collectives must file their responses to this Notice by no later than Monday, July 11, 2016.

Apple, CAB, the Networks, and Pandora (jointly, the Objectors) may respond to the Collectives’ submission or submissions by Monday, July 25, 2016.

The Collectives may reply to the Objectors’ responses by Monday, August 8, 2016.


 

June 6, 2016

[CB-CDA 2016-046]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board is of the preliminary view that it would be more efficient to have a single tariff, with harmonized definitions of services covered by the proposed tariffs filed by SOCAN, CSI, and SODRAC (jointly, the “Collectives”) in this matter. It is also of the preliminary view that it would be more efficient that reporting requirements be met by online music services filing a single, unique report to all Collectives.

Therefore, the Collectives are invited to submit to the Board a joint proposed text that would replace the provisions found in sections 6–17 of the proposed CSI Online Music Services Tariff, 2013, sections 5–10 of the proposed SOCAN Online Music Services Tariff, 2013, and sections 6–17 of the proposed SODRAC Tariff No. 6, Online Music Services, Music Videos, 2013. If necessary for the harmonization or simplification of these administrative provisions, the Collectives may jointly define the terms used in these proposed provisions.

For the purposes of this Notice, in order to facilitate drafting, the Collectives are asked to assume that all listed pieces of information must be provided by an online service, where available. The parties may refer to the Commercial Radio Tariff certified on April 23, 2016 in this respect.

The Collectives shall also make submissions, jointly or individually, on any transitional provisions that may be required for reporting, calculation and payment in relation to activities that will have taken place before the publication of the certified tariff.

The Collectives must file their responses to this Notice by no later than Monday, June 27, 2016.

Apple, CAB, the Networks, and Pandora (jointly, the Objectors) may respond to the Collectives’ submission or submissions by Monday, July 11, 2016.

The Collectives may reply to the Objectors’ responses by Monday, July 18, 2016.

The Board notes that it may further consult the parties on the wording of definitions, administrative and transitional provisions of the tariff in due course, if required.


 

16 décembre 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-087]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The extension request below is granted.

From: C. Chisick
Sent: December-16-15 4:18 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Campanella, Nadia: CB-CDA; Levac, Roch: CB-CDA; A. Thomas; C. Poirier; D. Kent; G. VanLoon; J. Kerr-Wilson; L. Watt, K. Simmons; L. Bertrand; M. Koch; T. Pinos; E. Mayzel
Subject: RE: Online Music Services CSI (2011-2013); SOCAN Tariff 22.A (2011-2013) and SODRAC Tariff 6 (2010-2013) - AVIS DE LA COMMISSION [IWOV-Legal.FID1271951] [CB-CDA 2015-085]

Dear Mr. McDougall,

I am writing with the consent of all parties to request that the Board consider granting a short extension to the deadlines set out in yesterday’s notice. The reason for this request is that my wife and I are expecting a baby very shortly and I am intending to take a short parental leave, returning to the office on or about Monday, January 18, 2016.

In the circumstances, the parties have agreed that it would be reasonable if the initial submissions requested by the Board were delivered on Friday, January 29, 2016, with responses due on Friday, February 12, 2016.

I am grateful to my colleagues for their cooperation and would be equally grateful to the Board for this indulgence.

CMC


 

15 décembre 2015

[CB-CDA 2015-085]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2015 SCC 57 issued on November 26, 2015, enunciated that the following principles needed to be taken into account by the Board when fixing licence fees:

  • Technological neutrality; and,
  • Balance between user and right-holder rights, with relevant factors to include the risks taken by the user, the extent of the investment made by the user in the new technology, and the nature of the copyright protected work’s use in the new technology.

The Board sees two options on how to deal with the matter:

Option 1: The Board could explain in its current, pending decision that the parties have agreed (should this be the case) not to deal with these principles in the current proceeding. The decision would also state that the next time the Board examine tariffs in respect of online music services, it would invite parties’ submissions on whether the SCC’s principles apply to the matter and if so, how.

Option 2: The Board could now invite parties’ submissions on whether the SCC’s principles apply to the current proceeding and if so, how. Depending on the parties’ submissions, this approach could involve a new evidence-gathering process (including interrogatories). This would have a significant impact on the date of release of the decision.

The Board favors option 1, which would allow for faster resolution of the current matter.

Parties are asked to file submissions on their views on these issues no later than Friday, January 8, 2016. Parties will be allowed to reply to each other no later than Friday, January 15, 2016.


 

28 mars 2014

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Parties are invited to comment on whether subsection 31.1(4) of the Copyright Act dealing with Hosting applies to any activities targeted by the proposed tariffs in the file mentioned above and explain why.

Parties are asked to provide their answer to the Board's question above by no later than Wednesday, April 23, 2014.

Parties are allowed to provide replies no later than Friday, May 2, 2014.


 

10 mars 2014

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The request described below is granted. Parties shall file their factums no later than Friday, March 14, 2014.


De : David Kent Envoyé : 10 mars 2014 17:05 À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA Cc : L. Watt; T. Pinos; E. Mayzel; S. Holland; C. Poirier; L. Bertrand; M. Koch; J. Kerr-Wilson; C. Chisick; M. Estabrooks; A. Sattle; A. Thomas; J. O'Hara; K. Simmons Objet : RE: Online Music Services (2011-2013)

Gilles,

I am writing with respect to the deadline later this week for delivering the factums in this matter.

The deadline is Thursday, March 13. I would like to suggest that the deadline be moved by one day to the end of the week – Friday March 14.

I have canvassed the other parties earlier today, and (with one exception ) all are either supportive or do not object to this suggestion. I have not heard one way or the other from SODRAC.

I appreciate the Board’s consideration of this request, and look forward to your reply.

David Kent


 

24 janvier 2014

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Apple's request is granted. Parties shall provide answers to the Board's January 16, 2014 questions no later than Friday, February 21, 2014. Parties may reply no later than Friday, February 28, 2014.


 

23 janvier 2014flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The Board confirms that the files mentioned above will proceed as follows, and as agreed between the parties:

Commercial Radio: SOCAN (2012-2013); Re:Sound (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); AVLA/SOPROQ (2012-2017); ArtistI (2012-2014)

Filing with the Board of Factums: no later than Friday, February 14, 2014.

Filing with the Board of Replies to Factums: no later than Wednesday, February 26, 2014.

Oral Argument: Monday, March 3, 2014 and Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

Online Music Services (2011-2013)

Filing with the Board of Factums: no later than Thursday, March 13, 2014.

Filing with the Board of Replies to Factums: no later than Wednesday, April 23, 2014.

Oral Argument: Monday, May 12, 2014 and Tuesday, May 13, 2014.

The schedule set by the Board for responding to its questions of January 16, 2014 in the Online Music Services file remains.


 

16 janvier 2014flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Veuillez trouver ci-joint des questions de la Commission, contenant de l'information hautement confidentielle, dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique.

Les parties doivent répondre aux questions de la Commission au plus tard le vendredi 31 janvier 2014. Les parties pourront déposer des répliques à ces réponses, au plus tard le vendredi 7 février 2014.

The Board grants U of T's request, agreed to by Access Copyright, to temporarily suspend the deadlines established in the Notice of the Board dated December 20, 2013, and defer any final ruling on the evidence to which this Notice relates until further notice.

Attachment: Questions from the Board - Online Music Services - Jan. 16, 2014 (PUBLIC).pdf


 

20 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The parties shall include legal arguments as part of their respective written submissions to be filed and served on all parties no later than noon on Friday, February 7, 2014 and are not to exceed 30 pages in length.

Reply submissions and supplementary compendia, including legal arguments, are to be filed and served on all parties no later than end of day on Monday, February 24, 2014 and are not to exceed 10 pages in length.

After having reviewed the written submissions filed on February 7, 2014, a party that feels it cannot comply with the volume limits above for its reply may seek leave from the Board to submit reply submissions that exceed the above volume limits.

The Board otherwise approves the procedures as agreed among the parties.


 

15 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

On November 13, Apple applied to the Board to strike paragraphs 8 through 21 of SOCAN's Reply Statement of Case and to rule SOCAN's claim for streams from the cloud outside the scope of these proceedings.

Apple argued that SOCAN's reply case was the first time that SOCAN asked for royalties for streams from the cloud. It explained that this violates the Board's Directive on Procedure, which provides that the Initial Statement contain its arguments and how it intends to establish them. Apple further alleged that SOCAN's references to the cloud in its reply case are a violation of procedural fairness.

SOCAN responded that its tariffs have applied to on-demand streams since 2007 and to free on-demand streams since 2012. The tariff proposed in May 2011 contained a specific reference to the cloud. Furthermore, Dr. Murphy's report described iTunes Match as an on-demand streaming service. Apple has already filed evidence on this issue, found in portions of the Walsh witness statement.

Apple replied to SOCAN on November 15.

Apple's applications are denied for the following reasons.

The arguments relating to the cloud advanced by SOCAN find grounding in its initial Statement of Case. As such, SOCAN's reply in paragraphs 8 through 21 is a clarification of its initial case, not a modification of that case or introduction of new evidence or argument. Moreover, we do not see how Apple could be surprised or prejudiced, given that Apple has already filed evidence on this issue. Finally, such a clarification is welcome, as it facilitates the Board's understanding and better focuses the issues.

This ruling is not an endorsement of the merit of the approach put forward by SOCAN; all parties will have the opportunity to discuss this approach during the hearing.


 

14 novembre 2014up arrow

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The draft schedule is acceptable to the Board.

De : L. Watt
Envoyé : 13 novembre 2013 17:51
À : G. McDougall
Cc : C. Chisick et al.
Objet : Online Music Services (2011-2013) - Proposed Hearing Schedule - REVISED

Gilles,

On behalf of all counsel, I am submitting a draft schedule that all parties have agreed to and which works for all of our witnesses. We hope the Board will find it satisfactory. We have indicated in the draft those days on which we might have to either start early or stay late, in order to try to keep the schedule rational. We will endeavour to be as efficient as we can in our time usage and it may be, as we experienced in the Commercial Radio hearing, that some of the time estimates end up being generous.

You will notice that there is one witness “out of order” (Marc Paquette from SOCAN) who is proposed to testify at the end of the Objectors’ case. We simply could not fit all of the Collectives’ witnesses in the first four days and Mr. Paquette was not available to attend on the following Monday, so the Objectors agreed to have Mr. Paquette testify at the end. We hope this will not cause the Board any inconvenience.

As you know from speaking with Casey, we had some difficulty identifying dates that work for all parties in terms of scheduling final argument in early January and we sincerely appreciate your continuing efforts in canvassing the Board’s availability.

Many thanks.

D. Lynne Watt


 

13 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

SOCAN may respond to Apple's attached motion no later than Thursday, November 14, 2013. Apple may reply no later than Friday, November 15, 2013.

Attachment: Letter to G. McDougall re: Apple (2).pdf


 

1 novembre 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

On October 21, 2013, CSI and SODRAC filed with the Board a motion that the Networks be deemed to have withdrawn from the proceedings because the Networks' statement of case, they argue, was not in compliance with the requirements of section B.5 of the Board's Revised Directive on Procedure issued on December 21, 2012. The Networks responded to the request on October 29 and CSI and SODRAC replied on October 31.

After reviewing the submissions, the Board is of the view that the alleged defects in the Networks' statement of case do not justify the removal of the Networks as a party to the proceedings. If it is found in due course that the arguments and the evidence relied upon by the Networks are not sufficient to support their case, then the Board's decision on the merits will address such issue. The Board therefore denies CSI and SODRAC's motion to rule that the Networks be deemed to have withdrawn from the proceedings.

The issue of admissibility of the Breton witness statement remains.

The Board finds it surprising that the Networks did not proceed to file the witness statement of Mr. Christian Breton and make reference to such evidence at the time of the filing of its original statement of case filed on October 11, 2013. This would have clearly been the best way to proceed for a few reasons. First, the information underlying the witness statement in issue was available at the time of the original filing. Second, the timelines set by the Board in its schedules of proceedings are designed to lead to hearing in an efficient and timely manner while providing all the parties, and the Board, sufficient time to properly prepare for hearings. As such, parties should always comply with the set timelines. Third, the Networks have not provided satisfactory explanations as to why the witness statement of Mr. Breton was not filed earlier.

However, making a ruling on the issue of admissibility requires the Board to also consider the relevance of the evidence sought to be adduced to the proceedings and the benefit for the Board to have the evidence made part of the record. After a review of the witness statement that the Networks are seeking leave to file, the Board believes that the new evidence may be relevant to these proceedings and that the potential benefit of having the evidence at issue part of the record outweighs any inconveniences. The Board could simply ask that the responses to interrogatories underlying the Breton witness statement be filed and made part of the record and rely on them if deemed appropriate. However, proceeding in such a way would take away the opportunity for the Board and the other parties to get some context and explanation from a witness who is able to provide such information through testimony.

As a matter of procedural fairness, CSI and SODRAC argue that the timeline set in these proceedings would not allow them to properly reply to this new evidence. The Board is conscious that CSI and SODRAC will likely want to address the substance of the witness statement, and they have all the right to do so. However, the Board believes that the timeline can be amended to provide enough time for CSI and SODRAC to properly prepare and reply to the evidence.

The Networks' revised statement of case and the witness statement of Mr. Christian Breton will be made part of the record. CSI and SODRAC may file any reply statement of case to the Networks' revised statement of case no later than Thursday, November 14, 2013.


 

25 octobre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CSI's request for an extension is partially granted. CSI can file its reply in respect of the Networks submissions no later than Tuesday, November 12, 2013. In respect of any other submissions, CSI shall file its reply as already scheduled.

De : Chisick, Casey
Envoyé : 25 octobre 2013 10:08
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : jkerrwilson; Pinos, Timothy; mkoch; gabriel vanloon; kathleen simmons.com; david.kent; lynne.watt ; Matthew.estabrooks; Baldassarra, Stefanie; cpoirier; lbertrand; athomas; Mayzel, Eric; jonathan.ohara
Objet : RE: Online Music Services (2011-2013) [IWOV-Legal.FID1557178]

Gilles,

In view of the extension granted to the Networks, CSI requests a one-week extension - that is, until Tuesday, November 12 - to file its Reply Statement of Case. Obviously, it will be important for CSI to know whether or not it is required to reply to the issues raised by the Networks before preparing and filing its Reply.

CMC


 

23 octobre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Networks' request for an extension is granted. The Networks can respond to the attached CSI and SODRAC's request by no later than Tuesday, October 29, 2013. CSI and SODRAC can reply no later than Thursday, October 31, 2013.

De : Jay Kerr-Wilson
Envoyé : 22 octobre 2013 17:48
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA; tpinos; cchisick; mkoch; gabriel vanloon; kathleen simmons.com; david.kent; lynne.watt; Matthew.estabrooks; sbaldassarra; cpoirier; lbertrand Ariel Thomas; emayzel; jonathan.ohara
Objet : RE: Online Music Services (2011-2013)

Dear Mr McDougall,

Both Ms Thomas and I are away from the office on business this week and will not have an opportunity to consult with our clients in time to file a response by Thursday. We respectfully request an extension to Tuesday, October 29th.

Regards,

Jay Kerr-Wilson

-------- Original message --------
From: Gilles.McDougall@cb-cda.gc.ca
Date: 10-22-2013 10:48 AM (GMT-08:00)

Subject: RE: Online Music Services (2011-2013)

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Networks can respond to the attached CSI and SODRAC's request by no later than Thursday, October 24, 2013. CSI and SODRAC can reply no later than Monday, October 28, 2013.

De : Pinos, Timothy [mailto:tpinos@CasselsBrock.com]
Envoyé : 21 octobre 2013 21:58
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA et al.

Objet : RE: Online Music Services (2011-2013)

Gilles:

Enclosed is the submission of CSI and SODRAC to the Board that the Statement of Case of the Networks fails to comply with the Board's Directive on Procedure.

Cheers

October 21 2013 Copyright Board re Networks Statement of Case.pdf


 

1 octobre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board would prefer that legal issues be addressed in the Statements of Case to be filed on October 11, 2013. If needed or requested, a deadline will be set later for submission of legal briefs.


 

6 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Puisqu'aucun commentaire additionnel n'a été reçu, la requête des opposants du 30 août 2013 est accordée. Les prochaines étapes du calendrier de l'affaire en rubrique sont les suivantes :

(D) au plus tard le vendredi 18 octobre 2013 :

réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);

réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);

réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).

La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.


 

3 septembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board is of the preliminary view that the request below should be granted. Parties other than SOCAN, who already sent the attached comments, are to respond to the request no later than Wednesday, September 4, 2013. No reply should be sent, unless sollicited by the Board.

De : Koch, Michael
Envoyé : 30 août 2013 14:59
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Objet : RE: SOCAN Tariff 22.A - Making Available Right / Tarif 22.A de la SOCAN - Droit de mise à disposition - Amendments to the schedule/Modifications au calendrier

Dear Mr. McDougall,

Request

I am writing on behalf of Apple, the Networks, Microsoft, ESA and Cineplex (the "Objectors") to request an extension - from September 9, 2013 to October 18, 2013 - to the deadline for the filing of submissions pursuant to paragraph (D) of the schedule, that is, for:

  • SOCAN's reply to responses filed pursuant to (B) and (C);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (B) to responses filed pursuant to (C) and to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (B);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (C) to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (C).

Reasons for the Request

On June 14, 2013, the Objectors each filed a response pursuant to paragraph (B) of the schedule, in which they opposed the position taken by SOCAN. On August 21, 2013 seven different participants filed submissions pursuant to paragraph (C), opposing the positions taken by the Objectors. An extension is required to provide the Objectors an adequate opportunity to consider, and respond to, these paragraph (C) submissions, for the following reasons:

  • Under the current schedule, those submitting paragraph (C) submissions had more than 9 weeks in which to consider, and respond to, the Objectors' paragraph (B) submissions - by contrast, the Objectors would have fewer than 3 weeks (of which 2 weeks before Labour Day) in which to respond in kind.
  • Despite the fact the paragraph (C) submissions generally side with SOCAN's position, they are voluminous - in the case of the Music Canada submission, 66 pages long.
  • The paragraph (C) submissions also considerably broaden the scope of the issues raised by SOCAN's application and the responses of the Objectors. An opportunity is therefore required to consider the implications of these submissions before responding.
  • Despite the late stage in the proceeding, two of the participants filing paragraph (C) submissions - Music Canada and CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. - filed a 75-page "Expert Opinion" authored by Dr. Silke von Lewinski. The Objectors require an adequate opportunity in which to have their experts review this opinion and advise the Objectors in respect thereof.
  • As expressed by Mr. Chisick on behalf of CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. in the context of his request for an extension to the deadline for filing paragraph (C) submissions, the majority of Objectors' counsel are currently occupied with meeting filing dates, and preparing for, ongoing Board proceedings. This includes the deadline for filing Objectors' evidence in the Online Music Services file to which the instant Making Available Right application primarily relates.

For all of these reasons, we respectfully request an extension of the September 9 filing date, to October 18.

Best regards,

Michael Koch
Goodmans LLP


 

14 août 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La requête reproduite ci-dessous est accordée. Les prochaines étapes du calendrier de l'affaire en rubrique sont les suivantes:

(C) réponses des participants, autres que la SOCAN, n'ayant pas déposé de réponse en vertu de (B) aux prétentions déposées en vertu de (B) : au plus tard le mercredi 21 août 2013;

(D) au plus tard le lundi 9 septembre 2013 :

réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);

réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);

réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).

La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.


 

2 août 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

The request sought by CMPA to intervene in the proceedings cited above is granted.

As stated in the Board's Notice of December 7, 2012, which was only cited partially by the Networks and Cineplex, "[T]he issue certainly is not limited to a single SOCAN tariff, and probably not limited to SOCAN itself. Any decision the Board may render on the meaning of the making available right with respect to musical works will have some impact on the interpretation of the same right with respect to other works, performances and recordings, especially if the Board's decision is judicially reviewed."

The intent of the proceedings was and still is to reach a broad number of participants.

As per its email of July 26, 2013, CMPA shall adhere to the Board's existing schedule and deadlines.


 

26 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As per the request below, CMPA will be allowed to participate in the above-mentioned file unless parties object to it by no later than Wednesday, July 31, 2013.

De : Jay Thomson
Envoyé : 26 juillet 2013 10:37
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Objet : SOCAN Tariff 22A - Making Available Right - Request by the CMPA for Standing to Intervene

Mr. Gilles McDougall
Secretary General
Copyright Board of Canada

Dear Mr. McDougall:

This is a request by the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA) for standing as an intervener in the current Copyright Board proceeding with respect to the above-mentioned file, in order to provide the Board by August 16, 2013 with the perspective of independent Canadian producers (and copyright owners) of audio-visual content.

The CMPA represents the interests of screen-based media companies engaged in the production and distribution of English-language television programs, feature films, and new media content in all regions of Canada. The CMPA's member companies are significant employers of Canadian creative talent and assume the financial and creative risk of developing original audio-visual content for Canadian and international audiences.

The CMPA is aware that our affiliated organization, the Canadian Retransmission Collective (CRC), already has standing to intervene in this proceeding. However, the CRC represents more than Canadian audio-visual producers (e.g. it also represents producers of programs broadcast on PBS and international producers); accordingly, we submit the CMPA would be in a better position to present the views of our members in this proceeding. To our knowledge, no other current party in the proceeding represents the Canadian audio-visual content industry.

Please be advised that, if our request for standing is granted, we would be fully prepared to adhere to the Board's existing schedule and deadlines, including, as noted, the August 16, 2013 deadline for responses to submissions filed by participants, other than SOCAN, who did not file submissions by June 14, 2013.

Jay Thomson, LL.B, LL.M
Vice President, Broadcasting Policy & Regulatory Affairs

Canadian Media Production Association


 

18 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La requête des sociétés de gestion pour prolonger les délais de dépôt des énoncés de cause, à laquelle les autres parties consentent, est accordée. Les délais pour déposer les énoncés de cause sont maintenant les suivants:

Dépôt des énoncés de cause de CSI, de la SOCAN et de la SODRAC : au plus tard le vendredi 26 juillet 2013

Dépôt des énoncés de cause des opposants: au plus tard le vendredi 11 octobre 2013

Dépôt de la réplique de CSI, de la SOCAN et de la SODRAC : au plus tard le mardi 5 novembre 2013

***********************************************************************************

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The collectives' request to extend the deadlines for filing of the statements of case, to which the other parties consent, is granted. The deadlines to file the statements of case are now as follows:

Filing of CSI, SOCAN and SODRAC statements of case: no later than Friday, July 26, 2013

Filing of objectors' case: no later than Friday, October 11, 2013

Filing of CSI, SOCAN and SODRAC reply statements of case: no later than Tuesday, November 5, 2013


 

21 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Apple may respond to CSI's request (attached) no later than Tuesday, June 25, 2013. In particular, Apple is asked to respond to the following CSI submission:

"The Collectives submit that regardless of whether Apple has Concrete Plans to launch iTunes Radio in Canada between now and the end of 2014, its Concrete Plans to do so in the U.S., which have been recently announced, are sufficient to require that its interrogatory responses be amended to report on the intended operation of the service in that location. Accordingly, this gives rise to Apple's continuing disclosure obligation to produce any further agreements in respect of iTunes Radio and to revise its responses in light of Apple's confirmed plans to launch the new iTunes Radio service."

CSI may reply no later than Thursday, June 27, 2013.

Attachment: CSI Letter to Board - June 19, 2013.pdf


 

28 mai 2013flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

This Ruling deals with the additional alleged deficiencies in Rogers' responses to CSI interrogatories:

Q32: Answered, the best available information was provided.

Q41: In accordance with the Ruling of the Board Dealing with Objections to Interrogatories, dated January 25, 2013 with respect to CSI's Interrogatory 41, Rogers shall supply the additional information requested concerning MVOD for the period from January 2011 to June 2011 and concerning Galaxie Radio for the period from January 2011 to July 2011, if available. Rogers shall continue to provide information for 2013 as it becomes available. Otherwise, answered.

Q49: Answered.

Q55: With respect to the costs related to advertising for the Galaxie Service in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, Rogers shall supply the information as offered. Otherwise, answered.


 

25 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Ruling dealing with Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories, in respect to the alleged deficiencies in Bell's responses to the collectives' interrogatories.

Attachment: Ruling - Online Music Services - Grounds for Deficiencies - April 25, 2013.pdf


 

23 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Ruling dealing with Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories.

Attachment: Ruling - Online Music Services - Grounds for Deficiencies - April 23, 2013.pdf


 

16 avril 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Pour faire suite à l'avis de la Commission du 11 avril 2013 dans l'affaire précitée, CSI a fourni à la Commission des commentaires. SOCAN et Ré:Sonne se sont dit être en accord avec ces commentaires. La Commission accepte la proposition de CSI et établit le calendrier suivant :

  1. dépôt des prétentions de la SOCAN : au plus tard le vendredi 8 mars 2013;
  2. réponses aux prétentions de la SOCAN des opposantes et des autres participants qui désirent ainsi répondre : au plus tard le vendredi 14 juin 2013;
  3. réponses des participants, autres que la SOCAN, n'ayant pas déposé de réponse en vertu de (B) aux prétentions déposées en vertu de (B) : au plus tard le vendredi 16 août 2013;
  4. au plus tard le vendredi 30 août 2013 :
    • réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);
    • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);
    • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).

La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.


NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the Board's Notice of April 11, 2013 in the above-mentioned file, CSI provided comments, to which SOCAN and Re:Sound agreed. The Board accepts CSI's proposition and adopts the following schedule:

  1. Filing of SOCAN's submissions: no later than Friday, March 8, 2013;
  2. Responses to SOCAN's submissions by the objectors and other participants who wish to so respond: no later than Friday, June 14, 2013;
  3. Responses to submissions filed pursuant to (B) by participants, other than SOCAN, who did not file submissions pursuant to (B): no later than Friday, August 16, 2013;
  4. No later than Friday, August 30, 2013:
    • SOCAN's reply to responses filed pursuant to (B) and (C);
    • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (B) to responses filed pursuant to (C) and to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (B);
    • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (C) to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (C).

The Board will then advise the participants on any further steps, if necessary, before taking the issue under advisement.


 

12 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The request described below is granted. All parties may provide their replies to deficiency motions by no later than Tuesday, April 16, 2013.

De : Koch, Michael
Envoyé : 12 avril 2013 14:29
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : 'Baldassarra, Stefanie'; 'Mills, Stephanie'; 'Pinos, Timothy'; 'Chisick, Casey'; 'Chantal Poirier';
Objet : Online Music Services (2011-2013) - Request for Brief Extension for Date for Motion re: Deficiencies

Gilles,

CSI and Apple are working to resolve, to the greatest extent possible, any claimed deficiencies relating to Apple's responses to interrogatories. We have been successful with a number but a few remain outstanding. Towards that end, the parties request an extension to the date for filing motions with the Board pursuant to the Directive on Procedure, from today, Friday April 12, to Tuesday, April 16.

Best regards,

Michael Koch


 

11 avril 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission est encline à accorder la requête décrite ci-dessous. Le calendrier suivant en résulterait :

  1. dépôt des prétentions de la SOCAN : au plus tard le vendredi 8 mars 2013;
  2. réponses aux prétentions de la SOCAN des opposantes et des autres participants qui désirent ainsi répondre : au plus tard le vendredi 14 juin 2013;
  3. réponses des participants, autres que la SOCAN, n'ayant pas déposé de réponse en vertu de (B) aux prétentions déposées en vertu de (B) : au plus tard le vendredi 12 juillet 2013;
  4. au plus tard le vendredi 26 juillet 2013 :
    • réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);
    • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);
    • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).
    La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.

Ce calendrier est celui qui prévaudra à moins que les parties ne fournissent leurs commentaires au plus tard le lundi 15 avril 2013.


NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board is inclined to grant the request described below. The following schedule would result:

  1. Filing of SOCAN's submissions: no later than Friday, March 8, 2013;
  2. Responses to SOCAN's submissions by the objectors and other participants who wish to so respond: no later than Friday, June 14, 2013;
  3. Responses to submissions filed pursuant to (B) by participants, other than SOCAN, who did not file submissions pursuant to (B): no later than Friday, July 12, 2013;
  4. No later than Friday, July 26, 2013:
    • SOCAN's reply to responses filed pursuant to (B) and (C);
    • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (B) to responses filed pursuant to (C) and to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (B);
    • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (C) to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (C).
    The Board will then advise the participants on any further steps, if necessary, before taking the issue under advisement.

This schedule will prevail unless parties provide comments by no later than Monday, April 15, 2013.

De : Kerr-Wilson_Jay [mailto:JKerrwilson@fasken.com]
Envoyé : 10 avril 2013 11:13
À : McDougall, Gilles et al.
Objet : RE: SOCAN Tariff 22.A - Making Available Right / Tarif 22.A de la SOCAN - Droit de mise à disposition

Dear Mr. McDougall,

On behalf of Rogers, Shaw, Bell, Quebecor, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cineplex and the CAB (collectively the "Moving Parties"), we are writing to request an extension in the deadline for parties to file responses to the arguments and evidence filed by SOCAN on March 8. This extension is required in order for the Moving Parties to retain and instruct expert witnesses and for those witnesses to prepare their respective reports to respond to the evidence that was unexpectedly filed by SOCAN.

In support of their request, the Moving Parties note that the proceeding to examine the "making available" issue has evolved considerably from SOCAN's original request in November.

On November 28, 2012 counsel for SOCAN wrote to Objectors to suggest that the preliminary matter of the impact of ss. 2.4(1.1) of the Act, which was raised in the context of the Online Music Services proceeding, be expanded to include other parties that may have an interest in other SOCAN tariffs in which the making available issue might be relevant. As part of that note, SOCAN stated that "In SOCAN's view, this is a pure legal issue that can and should be determined by the Board without the need of interrogatories and/or the presentation of new evidence" [emphasis added].

On December 7, 2012 the Board issued a Notice in response to SOCAN's request in which the Board expressed a number of preliminary views including the fact that "the interpretation of the making available right essentially raises purely legal issues that require little (or preferably, no) discovery or presentation of new evidence" [emphasis added]. The balance of the Board's proposed process refers to the filing of legal briefs but not to the filing of evidence.

On January 31, 2013 the Board issued a Notice in which it identified the parties to the "making available" proceeding and set out the process for dealing with the issue. At no point in the Notice is the preparation or filing of evidence mentioned. Parties were encouraged to only file joint memoranda.

On February 22, 2013 counsel for SOCAN wrote the Board asking for an extension in the time for SOCAN to file its legal brief. At no point the in the request did SOCAN indicate that it was planning on file evidence in addition to its legal arguments.

On March 8, 2013 SOCAN filed and served its submission which consisted of 30 pages of written submissions and a 25-page report by Dr. Ficsor with respect to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and matters related to foreign jurisdictions. Whereas SOCAN's original request that set in motion this process only referred to the interpretation of ss. 2.4(1.1) of the Copyright Act, Dr. Ficsor's report deals with a number of issues that have no bearing on the original question including evidence about legislation and licensing practices in foreign jurisdictions.

On Friday, March 15, counsel for Apple, on behalf of Apple, Microsoft and Cineplex. filed a motion with the Board asking that Dr. Ficsor's report be struck. On Monday, March 18 without hearing from any of the other parties, the Board dismissed the motion and extended the deadline for filing responding submissions until May 3.

In an attempt to comply with the Board's request that parties coordinate filings, the Moving Parties have been cooperating to find and jointly retain an appropriate expert witness who is able to comment on the new issues raised in Dr. Ficsor's report. The Moving Parties now find themselves in the situation where the schedule of their chosen expert will not accommodate the preparation of a responding report by May 3. We have been informed that the expert will require at least an additional 30 days in which to conduct the necessary research and prepare the written report. The Moving Parties will also require time to incorporate the expert evidence into their written submissions.

Therefore, the Moving Parties request that the deadline for filing responses to SOCAN's submission be extended to Friday, June 14 so that we may retain and instruct our expert witness to prepare evidence that responds to the evidence filed by SOCAN.

Regards,

--
Jay Kerr-Wilson | Partner


 

28 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CSI and Re:Sound's proposal described below is accepted.

De : Chisick, Casey
Envoyé : 28 mars 2013 10:24
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : JKerrwilson; aahmad; mhubbard; gbloom; mklee; bfong;freya; Gabriel vanloon; kathleen simmons.com; david.kent; athomas; Sarah.Kilpatrick; Pinos, Timothy; Fingerhut, Jessica; lynne.watt ; cpoirier;mkoch; Matthew.estabrooks
Objet : RE: Online Music Services (2010-2013): CSI's request for access to confidential information from Re:Sound Tariffs 8.A and 8.B proceeding [IWOV-Legal.FID1557178]

Dear Mr. McDougall,

CSI and Re:Sound are continuing to explore the possibility of resolving CSI's request for access to confidential information from the Re:Sound Tariffs 8.A and 8.B proceeding without the need for an order of the Board. Accordingly, CSI and Re:Sound have agreed to propose to the Board that CSI's initial request be adjourned sine die, to be brought back on notice by CSI if necessary, with responses from Re:Sound and other parties due within seven days after receipt of such notice.

We look forward to the direction of the Board.

CMC


 

20 mars 2013flèche par en haut

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The intent of the Board is that those who participate in the current proceeding be entitled to access information tendered in previous online music proceedings as if the information had been supplied in response to interrogatories. See, for example, the statement in the Board's Ruling of January 25, 2013 that "Information obtained by a collective in a previous online music proceeding can be shared with other collectives, unless that information was objected to and the objection was sustained."

Consequently, the Board confirms that a person who has executed a confidentiality agreement in the current proceeding is entitled to have access to confidential and highly confidential information tendered in previous online music services proceedings, subject to the terms of the February 11, 2013 confidentiality order (the "confidentiality order") and of the confidentiality agreement executed by that person in the current proceeding.

A person who is not party to the current proceeding and who tendered confidential and highly confidential information in previous online music services proceedings (a "non-party supplier") must be afforded the opportunity, set out in paragraph 8 of the confidentiality order, to object to the disclosure of information to a person who has signed a confidentiality agreement. Executed agreements must be delivered to a non-party supplier (or its counsel) three clear working days before any confidential and highly confidential information tendered by that supplier in previous online music services proceedings information is disclosed. A copy of the confidentiality order shall be sent with the first executed confidentiality agreement delivered to a non-party supplier.

Parties to the current proceeding may not have understood the extent of the disclosure envisaged by the Board when examining confidentiality agreements they received to date pursuant to paragraph 8 of the confidentiality order. They may avail themselves of that paragraph within three clear working days of this Order with respect to any information they tendered in previous online music services proceedings.


 

18 mars 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La requête en radiation du rapport d'expert du Dr. Fiscor est rejetée. Il serait inconcevable de traiter du droit de mise à disposition sans en comprendre le sens dans les traités pertinents.

La requête pour une extension de deux semaines est accordée. Toutefois, ce délai pourrait être trop court pour s'engager dans la préparation d'un rapport d'expert. En conséquence, un délai de quatre semaines est accordé. Suite à l'avis de la Commission du 22 février 2013, le calendrier des procédures est donc maintenant le suivant :

(A) dépôt des prétentions de la SOCAN : au plus tard le vendredi 8 mars 2013;

(B) réponses aux prétentions de la SOCAN des opposantes et des autres participants qui désirent ainsi répondre : au plus tard le vendredi 3 mai 2013;

(C) réponses des participants, autres que la SOCAN, n'ayant pas déposé de réponse en vertu de (B) aux prétentions déposées en vertu de (B) : au plus tard le vendredi 31 mai 2013;

(D) au plus tard le vendredi 14 juin 2013 :

  • réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);
  • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);
  • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).

La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.

********************************************************************

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The application to strike the expert report of Dr. Fiscor is denied. It would be unthinkable to deal with the making available right without some understanding of what that right is meant to be in the relevant treaties.

The application for a two-week extension is granted. However, two weeks may be a bit short to undertake the preparation of an expert report. Consequently, a four-week extension is granted. Further to the February 22, 2013 Notice of the Board, the schedule of proceedings is thus now the following:

(A) Filing of SOCAN's submissions: no later than Friday, March 8, 2013;

(B) Responses to SOCAN's submissions by the objectors and other participants who wish to so respond: no later than Friday, May 3, 2013;

(C) Responses to submissions filed pursuant to (B) by participants, other than SOCAN, who did not file submissions pursuant to (B): no later than Friday, May 31, 2013;

(D) No later than Friday, June 14, 2013:

  • SOCAN's reply to responses filed pursuant to (B) and (C);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (B) to responses filed pursuant to (C) and to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (B);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (C) to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (C).

The Board will then advise the participants on any further steps, if necessary, before taking the issue under advisement.


 

14 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Networks request is granted. Parties may respond to the March 1, 2013 Notice of the Board by no later than Thursday, March 28, 2013.


 

13 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Re:Sound's attached request to be granted a further extension of time to respond to CSI's request for access to confidential information from Re:Sound Tariff 8.A and 8.B proceeding, to which CSI agrees, is granted. Re:Sound may respond to the March 1, 2013 Notice of the Board by no later than Thursday, March 28, 2013.

Attachment: ReSoundT8 - ReSound letter to Board - CSI request.pdf


 

7 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the Board's Notice of March 1, 2013 in the above-noted matter, please note that no objections were received. Therefore, the Board confirms that Microsoft's request for leave to participate as an intervenor is granted.


 

4 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Re:Sound's attached request to be granted an extension of time to respond to CSI's request for access to confidential information from Re:Sound Tariff 8.A and 8.B proceeding, to which CSI and the BDUs agree, is granted. Parties may thus respond to the March 1, 2013 Notice of the Board reproduced below by no later than Monday, March 18, 2013.

Attachment: Re:Sound letter to the Board - response to CSI letter request to see confidential information in Tariff 8 proceeding.pdf


 

1 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

No later than Tuesday, March 5, 2013, the parties to the Re:Sound Tariff 8 proceeding may respond to the attached application.

Anyone who opposes granting the application may do so only in respect of information that (a) is confidential and either (b) it "owns" or (c) is owned by another and was filed with the understanding that the information would remain confidential. Parties who oppose granting the application are asked to specify which otherwise confidential documents they do not object being supplied in response to the application.

Attachment: 13-03-01 Letter to Copyright Board re ReSound Tariffs 8.A and 8.B Confidential Information.pdf


 

1 mars 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Microsoft will be allowed to participate in the above-mentioned file unless parties object to it by no later than Tuesday, March 5, 2013.

De : David Kent
Envoyé : 28 février 2013 08:00
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : Sarah Kilpatrick
Objet : Making Available - Microsoft Request to Participate

Dear Mr. McDougall,

We have been retained by Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") with respect to the "making available" amendments to the Copyright Act and, in particular, with respect to the "making available" proceeding described in the Board's Notice dated January 31, 2013 (the "Proceeding"). As described more fully below, Microsoft seeks leave to participate in the Proceeding.

Microsoft is Affected by the Issues Raised in the Proceeding

Microsoft's mission is to enable individuals and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential by creating technology that transforms the way people work, play, and communicate. Microsoft develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of programs, devices, and online services, including Windows, Surface, Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 365, SkyDrive, Xbox and Xbox Live, and Bing. Microsoft's products and services are used by consumers worldwide to access, experience, and enjoy a wide range of media including music, games, movies, and television, whether such media is obtained via Microsoft online services such as Xbox Music or Xbox Live, via third party applications, or from third party online marketplaces.

As part of its licensed entertainment services in Xbox Music and Xbox Live, Microsoft enables users to download media files containing music for which they have purchased a licence (including music tracks, film, television, and video game content). Additionally, users of various Microsoft online cloud services may also choose to store, or backup, and download media files containing music for their personal use, whether obtained from Microsoft or from third party media providers. Accordingly, Microsoft stands to be affected by the resolution of the "making available" issue raised by SOCAN in its email to the Board of November 28, 2012 and to be determined in the Proceeding.

Microsoft's Preliminary Position

Microsoft is keenly interested in both preserving settled copyright law and sensibly resolving new issues, to better enable consumers to effectively access and use the media they have purchased or licensed, and to encourage sensible interpretations of copyright law that foster innovation. Microsoft's preliminary view is that these objectives are best met, for the purposes of the Proceeding, by rejecting SOCAN's interpretation of the amendments to the Copyright Act. In other words, new section 2.4(1.1) does not render moot or inapplicable the recent conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in ESA v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34, (and the Rogers companion case), and users of music on the Internet are not thereby liable to pay communication right royalties to SOCAN when they post musical works on their Internet servers for download by their end-user customers.

Microsoft's Request to Participate

Preliminary steps with respect to the Proceeding were taken by the Board in its Notice of December 7, 2012. In that Notice, the Board set out a process for interested parties to (i) identify themselves; (ii) indicate how they were affected; (iii) provide their preliminary views on the merits and (iv) comment on the Board's proposed procedures. That process culminated in the Board's January 31, 2013 Notice which (i) identified the parties "as of right"; (ii) set out the list of intervenors who would also participate and (iii) established a sequence and schedule of submissions. As amended, the deadline for the first submission (from SOCAN) is March 8, 2013. Objectors and other participants who wish to do so are to respond by April 5, 2013.

Microsoft missed the December 21, 2012 date for responding to the Board's December 7 Notice. This is because it only became aware of the Proceeding in late January 2013 when advised by its US counsel. It thereafter sought Canadian legal advice, and then considered the effect of the "making available" issue on its users, its businesses and its objectives before concluding that it was appropriate to seek to participate. At that point we were asked to prepare this request.

Microsoft respectfully submits that it should be given leave to participate for the following reasons:

  1. Microsoft is clearly a directly interested stakeholder. Its voice should be heard in deciding this matter. A wide variety of intervenors is currently contemplated, including governments and individuals. Microsoft is a core stakeholder and should be permitted an opportunity to state its case.
  2. No party will be affected at all, much less prejudiced, by Microsoft being added as a participant at this stage. As the Board noted on December 7, the Proceeding essentially raises legal issues. No party has yet filed a submission. SOCAN's submission, due March 8, is unaffected by the identity of the other participants. The filing deadline for other participants, such as Microsoft, has not yet arrived. Microsoft asks for no accommodation, and its inclusion will not extend or otherwise negatively affect the process in any way.
  3. The Board permitted Cineplex to make a "late filing" in response to the December 7 Notice (see Board Notice dated January 17, 2013). In doing so, the Board noted that the December 7 Notice "was to reach a broad number of respondents". It can be difficult to provide effective notice to firms that are not current participants in proceedings before the Board. Microsoft responded responsibly, but with alacrity, once alerted to the Proceeding. It has provided the information requested in the December 7 Notice. The fact that it did not have prior notice should not be held against it.

Conclusion

Accordingly, this is to request leave for Microsoft to participate as an intervenor in the Proceeding. I look forward to hearing from you.

David W. Kent


 

February 22, 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMISSION

Dans les circonstances, la requête de la SOCAN mentionnée ci-dessous est accordée. Le nouvel échéancier est le suivant :

(A) dépôt des prétentions de la SOCAN : au plus tard le vendredi 8 mars 2013;

(B) réponses aux prétentions de la SOCAN des opposantes et des autres participants qui désirent ainsi répondre : au plus tard le vendredi 5 avril 2013;

(C) réponses des participants, autres que la SOCAN, n'ayant pas déposé de réponse en vertu de (B) aux prétentions déposées en vertu de (B) : au plus tard le vendredi 3 mai 2013;

(D) au plus tard le vendredi 17 mai 2013 :

  • réplique de la SOCAN aux réponses déposées en vertu de (B) et (C);
  • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (B) aux réponses déposées en vertu de (C) et aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (B);
  • réplique des participants ayant déposé une réponse en vertu de (C) aux réponses déposées par d'autres participants en vertu de (C).

La Commission avisera les participants par la suite de toute démarche supplémentaire requise, au besoin, avant de mettre cette question en délibéré.


NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Given the circumstances, SOCAN's request described below is granted. The new schedule is as follows:

(A) Filing of SOCAN's submissions: no later than Friday March 8, 2013;

(B) Responses to SOCAN's submissions by the objectors and other participants who wish to so respond: no later than Friday, April 5, 2013;

(C) Responses to submissions filed pursuant to (B) by participants, other than SOCAN, who did not file submissions pursuant to (B): no later than Friday May 3, 2013;

(D) No later than Friday May 17, 2013:

  • SOCAN's reply to responses filed pursuant to (B) and (C);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (B) to responses filed pursuant to (C) and to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (B);
  • Reply of participants who filed a response pursuant to (C) to responses filed by other participants pursuant to (C).

The Board will then advise the participants on any further steps, if necessary, before taking the issue under advisement.


 

11 février 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Board's Order dealing with information for which confidential treatment may be claimed.

Attachment: Confidentiality Order - Online Music.pdf


 

1 février 2013flèche par en haut

ORDER OF THE BOARD

This order deals with a number of pending matters in the above-referenced proceedings.

  1. On January 11, 2013, Netflix, relying on section A.2 of the Board's directive on procedure issued on June 8, 2011, addressed the attached letter. The letter will not be made part of the record of these proceedings for two reasons.
    • First, comments should be based on the record as it stands. The letter is not. Indeed, dealing with it necessarily requires the additional collection of fresh evidence.
    • Second, the main purpose of the letter is to address two issues that have not been raised by any of the parties to the proceedings. Barring exceptional circumstances, a person who files comments should not be allowed to broaden the debate. This is especially so with Netflix, who has known of these proceedings for some time, was invited to participate at an earlier stage and chose not to. Even if it were true that Netflix could not have raised the issues it now seeks to address before July 12, 2012, the issue should have been raised much earlier and certainly no later than in mid-September.
  2. On January 25, 2013, Facebook, also relying on section A.2 of the Board's directive on procedure, addressed to the Board the attached letter. Barring exceptional circumstances, this letter should be ignored, for the following reasons.
    • First, the letter fails to mention that Facebook has known of these proceedings at least since June, 2011. Those who seek to participate, so late in the process, in a matter they have known of for so long should at least state this as a fact and then explain their sudden desire to leave the sidelines and join the fray.
    • Second, the justification that Facebook apparently advances for now springing into action (i.e., the timing of some statements contained in SOCAN's memorandum of January 13, 2013) does not stand to analysis. These statements, to the extent they do have the meaning Facebook attaches to them, are nothing new: the Board addressed them as far back as in 1999. The only reasonable conclusion is that Facebook has known for some time that these issues would be part of the debate before the Board in these proceedings.
  3. This having been said, exceptional circumstances do exist that justify allowing Netflix and Facebook to participate in these proceedings. The matter is proceeding without a hearing, as a result of an agreement reached by SOCAN and some of the objectors. Some newer objectors to the relevant tariffs for 2012 and 2013, who are not party to the agreements and who may not know of them, will have to be allowed to comment on them: to allow Netflix and Facebook to participate at that stage will not disrupt the process. Finally, Netflix and Facebook are dominant players in the relevant markets: even if their sudden urge to express their view resulted in some disruption, it would be preferable to gain the benefit of some comments on their part.
  4. This matter cannot conveniently proceed before the long-awaited agreement dealing with audiovisual user-generated content, now referred to as Tariff 22.D.2, has been filed with the Board. SOCAN is asked to provide forthwith a status report on this matter.
  5. The Board intends to proceed with this matter as follows.
  1. The Registry of the Board shall identify, among all those who objected to SOCAN Tariff 22 for the years 2007 to 2013, those who are not party to the agreements pertaining to SOCAN Tariffs 22.D.1 (Audiovisual Webcasts) and 22.D.2 (Audiovisual User-Generated Content) and who may be streaming audiovisual or user-generated content.
  2. Once the 22.D.2 agreement has been filed with the Board, the Registry shall send, to anyone identified in A), to Netflix and to Facebook, the agreements, the parties' comments on the agreements and a notice that will include the following questions:
    • Do you stream audiovisual programs containing one or more musical works for which a licence from SOCAN may be required? If so, what are your views on the request that the Board certify a tariff that reflects the attached agreement between SOCAN on the one hand, and Apple Inc., Apple Canada Inc., Cineplex Entertainement LP, BCE Inc. Rogers Communication Partnership, Videotron G.P. and Yahoo! Canada Co. on the other?
    • Do you stream user generated content containing one or more musical works for which a licence from SOCAN may be required? If so, what are your views on the request that the Board certify a tariff that reflects the attached agreement between SOCAN on the one hand, and (list the objectors who will have signed the agreement) on the other?
  3. The recipients of the notice set out in B) shall have three weeks to respond. The recipients in general, and Netflix and Facebook in particular, will be expected to focus on the issues already raised by the parties. They will avoid introducing new evidence, unless this consists of facts that are not controversial and that shed significant light on the proper course of action.
    • It may not be possible for the recipients to strictly comply with the limitations set out in the previous paragraph. The Board will decide which additional content to allow into the record as need be; it will deal with procedural issues that may arise as a result at the same time.
  4. SOCAN will then be allowed three weeks to respond to all comments received pursuant to C). There shall be no further comment or reply from anyone else except by leave.
  5. The Board will then decide whether further input is required before it proceeds to the examination of the proposed tariffs.

SOCAN and objectors are invited to comment on this proposed course of action no later than on Friday, February 15, 2013. Responses to these comments may be filed no later than on Friday, February 22, 2013.


 

January 31, 2013flèche par en haut

Veuillez prendre note de l'avis de la Commission ci-joint (Droit de mise à disposition).

*********************************

Please see the attached Notice of the Board (Making Available Right).

Attachment : 1) Notice of the Board - Making Available Right.pdf 2) Avis de la Commission - Droit de mise à disposition.pdf


 

25 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Attached is the Ruling of the Board dealing with objections to interrogatories.

Attachment: Ruling - Online Music Services - Objections to Interrogatories.pdf


 

24 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CSI's understanding of the Board's order is correct.

De : Chisick, Casey

Envoyé : 24 janvier 2013 09:08

À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA

Objet : RE: CSI - Online Music Services (2011-2013); SOCAN Tariff 22.A - Online Music Services (2011-2013); SODRAC Tariff 6 - Online Music Services, Music Videos (2010-2013) - NCRA/ARC's Request

Dear Mr. McDougall,

We write to seek clarification and confirmation in relation to the Order of the Board dated January 14, 2013, granting the Application of NCRA/ARC to have royalties set by non-commercial radio stations for their Internet activities as part of a separate hearing, not the current one. Our understanding of the Board's Order is as follows:

  • The CSI Online Music Tariff (2008-2010) and CSI's corresponding proposals for 2011 through 2013 cover the online activities (permanent downloads, limited downloads, on-demand streaming, and webcasting, each as applicable,) of all users that engage in those activities, including the members of NCRA/ARC.
  • The intent and effect of the Board's decision is not to withdraw these activities from the scope of the certified tariffs. The Board's decision only permits NCRA/ARC not to participate in the current proceeding with the other users.

Consequently:

  • The rates and conditions for 2011 through 2013, which are to be set by the Board in this hearing, will not apply to the members of NCRA/ARC but the Board reserves its jurisdiction to determine these rates and conditions in another proceeding, the schedule for which can be determined later.
  • The 2008-2010 CSI Tariff, which is still in force by virtue of section 70.18 of the Copyright Act, continues to apply to members of NCRA/ARC and will continue to do so until it is replaced by a new tariff that the Board determines to be applicable to members of NCRA/ARC who engage in the relevant activities.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding and dispute, CSI respectfully requests that the Board advise the parties accordingly.

CMC


 

17 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The intent of the December 7, 2012 Board's Notice was to reach a broad number of recipients. Given the circumstances, Cineplex's request described below to file a late submission is granted. Parties may reply to Cineplex's submissions no later than Monday, January 21, 2013.


 

15 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Objectors' request described below, agreed by the collectives, is granted.

Mr. McDougall,

My apologies for any confusion arising from my email below. I am writing on behalf of the objectors Pandora, Google, Apple, Stingray and CAB.

We respectfully request that the Board amend its schedule and grant all parties one additional day to file replies to objections to interrogatories (thereby amending the deadline to January 16, instead of today). We submit this request so as to permit some further negotiations that we hope will reduce the number of objections to be filed with the Board.

Counsel for CSI and SOCAN have provided their consent for this request for an extension.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Sarah

Sarah S Kilpatrick


 

14 janvier 2013flèche par en haut

ORDER OF THE BOARD

L'Alliance des radios communautaires, L'Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec and the National Campus and Community Radio Association/L'Association nationale des radios étudiantes et communautaires (NCRA/ARC) ask that any royalties payable by non-commercial radio stations for their Internet activities not be set as part of the hearing dealing with the above-referenced tariffs.

In response, CSI requests that NCRA/ARC clarify the nature of its members' activities. If they do not offer downloads, streams, or interactive webcasting, then the Board may assume that CSI agrees with the NCRA/ARC application. That response misses the point. If non-commercial radio stations do not use works in the repertoire of SOCAN or CSI in the manner set out in the proposed tariffs, then the application under consideration is moot. The issue to be decided is whether NCRA/ARC ought to participate in the examination of the above-referenced tariffs whether or not non-commercial radio stations use the relevant repertoires in the manner set out in the proposed tariffs.

The application is granted. The royalties payable by non-commercial radio stations for their Internet activities shall not be set as part of the examination of the above-referenced tariffs. Any such royalties shall be set in the context of future proceedings, if necessary.

NCRA/ARC also appears to request some assurance that its members' current or future Internet services will not attract royalties in addition to those they currently pay to SOCAN or to CSI and that such royalties, if determined in future proceedings, will be set on a non-retroactive basis. The Board cannot provide those assurances: if non-commercial radio stations perform protected uses, they require a licence. Again, whether such activities should attract additional royalties and whether any such royalties should be set on a retroactive basis shall be determined in the context of future proceedings, if necessary.


 

21 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d'auteur du Canada a rendu une décision provisoire dans le dossier précité à l'égard de la demande de décision provisoire formulée par l'Agence des droits des radiodiffuseurs canadiens et la Société collective de retransmission du Canada. La décision est affichée sur le site web de la Commission sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Décisions récentes » à : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html.

________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Copyright Board of Canada has rendered an interim decision in the above-noted matter in regards to the Application of the Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency Inc. and the Canadian Retransmission Collective for an interim decision. The decision is posted on the Board's web site under the heading "What's New - Recent Decisions" at: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-e.html.


 

21 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Google inc. n'était pas identifié comme participant dans la Directive sur la procédure du 18 décembre 2012, même si sa requête en intervention a été acceptée. Cette erreur a été corrigée dans la Directive révisée, ci-jointe. Nous nous excusons des inconvénients que cela aurait pu causer.

________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Google Inc. was not identified as a participant in the Directive on Procedure dated December 18, 2012, even though its request for leave to intervene was granted. This has been corrected in the attached revised Directive. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have cause.

Attachment: Online Music Services (2012-2013) - Revised Directive on procedure and Appendices new2.pdf


 

19 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

En référence à l'avis de la Commission en date du 4 décembre 2012, vous trouverez ci-joint la directive sur la procédure. Nous attirons votre attention sur les items suivants :

  1. La version électronique de la preuve (sur CD-ROM, DVD ou clé USB) doit être déposée auprès de la Commission en même temps que les copies papier à la date fixée pour ce faire. Vous devez aussi vous assurer que tous les participants reçoivent les versions papier et électronique le même jour que les documents sont déposés auprès de la Commission;
  2. En règle générale, les réponses aux demandes de renseignements ne sont PAS déposées auprès de la Commission. Les participants devraient déposer en preuve uniquement les réponses aux demandes de renseignements auxquelles ils entendent faire référence;
  3. Lorsque les participants déposent des documents auprès de la Commission, les renseignements confidentiels et hautement confidentiels doivent être surlignés en jaune et bleu, respectivement. La page titre du document doit indiquer si le document contient des renseignements confidentiels ou hautement confidentiels.

**************************************************************************

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the Board's Notice of December 4, 2012, attached is the Directive on Procedure. We draw your attention on the following points:

  1. The electronic version of the evidence (on CD, DVD or USB key) should be filed with the Board, along with the hard copies on the date set for that purpose. You must also ensure that other participants receive their hard copy and electronic version on the same date the documents are filed with the Board;
  2. As a general rule, responses to interrogatories are NOT filed with the Board. Parties should only file as evidence those responses to interrogatories to which they know they intend to refer;
  3. When filing documents with the Board, confidential and highly confidential information should be highlighted in yellow and blue, respectively. The cover page of the document should indicate whether it includes confidential or highly confidential information.

Attachment : Online Music Service (2010-2013) - Directive on procedure and Appendices new2.pdf


 

14 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On December 4, 2012, the Board ruled that "[t]he royalties payable by Sirius XM for its Internet activities shall not be set during the forthcoming hearings dealing with proposed SOCAN Tariff 22.A. Those royalties shall be set in the context of future proceedings, if necessary." This Ruling is attached.

No later than Friday, December 21, 2012, SOCAN and CSI shall indicate whether they agree that the attached, December 12, 2012 application of NCRA/ARC to the same effect should be disposed of in the same way and if not, why not. NCRA/ARC may reply no later than Friday, January 11, 2013.


 

7 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

[la version française suit l'anglaise]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

SOCAN intends to ask that the Board deal with the impact of the coming into force of the making available right on its proposed tariffs. (See attached email) Specifically, SOCAN wishes the Board to rule on the interface between the making available right and ESA v. SOCAN [2012 SCC 34] and companion cases.

In a nutshell, SOCAN is of the view that the making available right renders moot the conclusion that the communication right does not apply to downloads of musical works. Without doubt, some users will take issue with that view.

The issue is properly before the Board as a necessary incident to the exercise of its core competence. It is not possible to set SOCAN Tariff 22.A (Online Music Services) without deciding the extent, if any, to which the enactment of subsection 2.4(1.1) of the Copyright Act and other companion amendments may "revive" SOCAN's ability to collect royalties for the transmission of permanent copies of musical works.

The issue certainly is not limited to a single SOCAN tariff, and probably not limited to SOCAN itself. Any decision the Board may render on the meaning of the making available right with respect to musical works will have some impact on the interpretation of the same right with respect to other works, performances and recordings, especially if the Board's decision is judicially reviewed.

The Board's preliminary views on the issue are as follows.

First, the interpretation of the making available right essentially raises purely legal issues that require little (or preferably, no) discovery or presentation of new evidence.

Second, the issue would be best approached through a separate proceeding during which all those who may be affected by a decision of the Board may have an opportunity to make their views known.

Third, the examination of the issue should not change anything to the timetable of other proceedings, other than to carve out the interpretation of the making available right as an issue to be examined in those proceedings.

Fourth, it should be possible to deal with the issue through written submissions. Collectives would be allowed four weeks to file their legal arguments. Objectors would respond within four weeks and collectives would be allowed two weeks to reply. Accordingly, all pleadings would be filed before the end of March 2013. The possibility of oral arguments should be entertained only after the collectives' replies have been filed.

Fifth, the following parties appear to be directly or indirectly concerned by the issue:

  • any collective that may, now or later, act for those whose works, performances or recordings may be made available in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public;
  • any objector who may make available a work, performance or recording in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public, including objectors to SOCAN tariffs 17 (Transmission of Pay, Specialty and other Television Services by Distribution Undertakings), 22.A (Online Music Services), G (User Generated Content), H (Game Sites) and I (Other Sites) as well as all other SOCAN 22 tariffs, to the extent that these are currently user-based, 23 (Hotel and Motel In-room Services), 24 (Ringtones and Ringbacks) and 25 (Satellite Radio Services).

Recipients of this notice are asked to inform the Board no later than Friday, December 21, 2012, of the following:

  1. whether they consider themselves to be affected by the issues to be determined and if so, how;
  2. whether they intend to participate in this proceedings;
  3. to the extent possible, their preliminary views on the issues to be determined; and
  4. any comments they may have on whether the issues to be determined should be addressed as proposed in this notice.

Responses to the comments of others should be received no later than Friday, January 11, 2013.

**************************************************************************

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La SOCAN compte demander à la Commission de traiter de l'impact de l'entrée en vigueur du droit de mise à disposition sur ses projets de tarifs. (Voir courriel ci-joint) Plus précisément, la SOCAN désire que la Commission se prononce sur le rapport entre le droit de mise à disposition et l'arrêt ESA c. SOCAN [2012 CSC 34] et les décisions connexes.

Essentiellement, la SOCAN soutient que le droit de mise à disposition rend caduque la conclusion voulant que le droit de communication ne concerne pas le téléchargement d'œuvres musicales. Il ne fait aucun doute que certains utilisateurs ne partagent pas ce point de vue.

La Commission est saisie de la question à titre d'incident nécessaire à l'exercice de sa compétence essentielle. On ne peut homologuer le tarif 22.A (Services de musique en ligne) de la SOCAN sans décider si, et dans quelle mesure, l'adoption du paragraphe 2.4(1.1) de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur et d'autres modifications connexes font en sorte que la SOCAN peut à nouveau percevoir des redevances pour la transmission de copies permanentes d'œuvres musicales.

La question ne se soulève certainement pas à l'égard d'un seul tarif de la SOCAN, et concerne sans doute d'autres sociétés de gestion. La décision que la Commission pourrait rendre sur le sens du droit de mise à disposition à l'égard des œuvres musicales influera sur l'interprétation du même droit à l'égard des autres œuvres, des prestations et des enregistrements, surtout si cette décision fait l'objet d'une demande de révision judiciaire.

Le point de vue préliminaire de la Commission sur la question est le suivant.

Premièrement, l'interprétation du droit de mise à disposition soulève essentiellement des questions purement juridiques nécessitant peu (ou, encore mieux, pas) de communication préalable ou de présentation de preuve.

Deuxièmement, la question bénéficierait d'être abordée dans le cadre d'un processus distinct durant lequel tous ceux qu'une décision de la Commission pourrait affecter auront l'occasion de faire valoir leurs moyens.

Troisièmement, l'examen de la question ne devrait rien changer à l'échéancier d'autres affaires, sinon que de retirer l'interprétation du droit de mise à disposition comme question devant être examinée dans ces affaires.

Quatrièmement, il devrait être possible de traiter de la question au moyen d'échanges écrits. Les sociétés de gestion devraient disposer de quatre semaines pour faire valoir leur point de vue. Les opposants répondraient quatre semaines plus tard, puis les sociétés de gestion répliqueraient au bout de deux semaines. Par conséquent, toutes les plaidoiries seraient produites avant la fin mars 2013. Une argumentation orale ne serait pas envisagée avant le dépôt des répliques des sociétés de gestion.

Cinquièmement, les personnes suivantes semblent concernées, directement ou non, par la question :

  • les sociétés de gestion qui agissent ou qui pourraient plus tard agir pour le compte des titulaires dont les œuvres, les prestations ou les enregistrements pourraient être mis à la disposition de manière que chacun puisse y avoir accès de l'endroit et au moment qu'il choisit individuellement;
  • les opposants qui pourraient mettre à la disposition du public une œuvre, une prestation ou un enregistrement de manière que chacun puisse y avoir accès de l'endroit et au moment qu'il choisit individuellement, y compris les opposants aux tarifs suivants de la SOCAN : 17 (Transmission de services de télévision payante, services spécialisés et autres services de télévision par des entreprises de distribution), 22.A (Services de musique en ligne), G (Contenu généré par utilisateurs), H (Sites de jeux) et I (Autres sites) ainsi que les autres aspects du tarif 22, dans la mesure où en ce moment ils visent un utilisateur, 23 (Services offerts dans les chambres d'hôtel et de motel), 24 (Sonneries et sonneries d'attente) et 25 (Services de radio par satellite).

Les destinataires du présent avis sont priés d'informer la Commission, au plus tard le vendredi, 21 décembre 2012, de leur point de vue sur ce qui suit :

  1. s'ils se croient visés par les questions à trancher et si oui, comment;
  2. s'ils entendent participer à la présente affaire;
  3. dans la mesure possible, leur point de vue préliminaire sur les questions à trancher;
  4. si les questions à trancher devraient être abordées comme le propose le présent avis.

On pourra répondre aux commentaires des autres destinataires au plus tard le vendredi, 11 janvier 2013.

Attachment : Making Available Right - SOCAN.pdf


 

4 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

On November 18, 2012, the parties to the above-referenced proceedings filed with the Board a proposed schedule. On November 23, the Board sent a copy of the proposed schedule to Sirius XM, who had not apparently received copy of the proposed schedule.

On November 26, Sirius XM moved that "the Board issue a clear statement that proposed Tariff 22.A does not apply to Sirius XM and, therefore, that Sirius XM shall no longer be required to participate in this proceeding." In the alternative, Sirius XM asked that the Board decline to set the schedule until all parties have an opportunity to negotiate a reasonable timeline for the remaining steps. Its reasons for so doing were as follows. First, Sirius XM was not involved in designing the schedule. Second, the use-based language in proposed Tariff 22 makes it impossible for Sirius XM to determine whether Tariff 22.A [Online Music Services] applies to its Internet radio offering, which Sirius XM considers to be purely ancillary to its satellite radio offering. Sirius XM favours the "current predictable, user-based tariff structure" that allows it to pay Internet royalties pursuant to Tariff 22.D [Commercial Television, Non-Broadcast Television, Pay Audio Services, Satellite Radio] and nothing else. This approach avoids Sirius XM having to participate in multiple proceedings to determine the royalties it must pay to SOCAN.

SOCAN takes issue with the applicant's description of the sequence of events, asks that the application be dismissed but is willing to accommodate Sirius XM on the time allowed to it to deal with interrogatories.

The application of Sirius XM came as somewhat of a surprise. The parties should be close to an agreement, since they moved that satellite radio tariffs hearings be postponed sine die. One would expect such an agreement to address all possible forms of royalty liability on the part of Sirius XM. Yet the motion has been filed, and the Board must deal with it.

The Board will not allow the particular situation of Sirius XM to derail the schedule in the above-referenced proceedings.

The declaration that Sirius XM is asking would require the Board to dismiss at the outset SOCAN's proposed use-based language in favour of user-based tariffs. This is not possible. Whether Internet tariffs should be use-based or user-based, either as a rule or on in the case of Sirius XM, is far from settled, as the Board made clear in the inaugural Tariff 22.B-G:

  • [7] Our decision to certify a user-based Internet tariff is not to be taken as the approach that we will use for all tariffs in the future. We expect that the relative importance of websites in the overall business strategy of some music users will increase; in time, websites will become for some an independent, significant source of revenue. Existing monitoring tools, that already allow a precise assessment of music consumption, will be further refined; better, cheaper tools will be developed. We will reexamine this issue in the future. As other developments occur, a use-based approach may prove to be more appropriate. [SOCAN - Tariffs 22.B to 22.G (1996-2006) Internet - Other Uses of Music (24 October 2008) Copyright Board Decision]

Whether the Internet activities of Sirius XM remain ancillary to its satellite transmissions cannot be settled without some evidentiary basis, especially since full access to its Internet offerings now commands a premium of 25 per cent over the cost of the basic service.

Sirius XM asks that all its royalties be certified following a single proceeding. This is reasonable. In this instance, the best way to do so is to issue a ruling similar to the one the Board issued on May 14, 2012 in another proceeding, at the request of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

The royalties payable by Sirius XM for its Internet activities shall not be set during the forthcoming hearings dealing with proposed SOCAN Tariff 22.A. Those royalties shall be set in the context of future proceedings, if necessary. SOCAN may then, if it so wishes, argue that the Internet activities of Sirius XM should be use-based, while Sirius XM may argue that it should be subject to a single, user-based tariff.

Sirius XM shall continue to pay interim royalties pursuant to SOCAN Tariff 22.D for the years 1996 to 2006 until the Board certifies a final tariff for the Internet transmissions of Sirius XM, unless the Board decides otherwise in an interim decision.


 

4 décembre 2012flèche par en haut

RULING OF THE BOARD

The Board adopts the following schedule of proceedings with respect to the above-mentioned file, leading to a hearing beginning Tuesday, November 19, 2013:

Exchange of interrogatories: no later than Friday, December 7, 2012

Objections to interrogatories: no later than Friday, December 21, 2012

Filing, with the Board, of replies to objections to interrogatories: no later than Tuesday, January 15, 2013

[Board Ruling]

Responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, March 15, 2013

Exchange of motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Thursday, March 28, 2013

Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions: no later than Friday, April 12, 2013

[Board Ruling]

Complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, May 17, 2013

Filing of CSI, SOCAN and SODRAC statements of Case: no later than Friday, July 19, 2013

Filing of Objectors' Case: no later than Friday, October 4, 2013

Filing of CSI, SOCAN and SODRAC reply statements of case: no later than Friday, November 1, 2013

Filing of legal briefs (if required by the Board)

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.

The Directive on Procedure will follow shortly.


 

29 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Please be informed that the Board will soon provide an indication as to how it intends to deal with the issue of the making available right within the context of SOCAN 22 and other proposed tariffs.


 

28 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

In your letter of November 26, 2012, you request confirmation of CRIA's right to file any written submissions related to the above-referenced file. This confirmation is unnecessary, given the wording of the Model Directive on Procedure which states, at section A.2, that:

"Anyone may comment in writing on any aspect of the proceedings. As a general rule, comments received later than the date by which participants must present or file oral or written arguments, will not be considered. In due course, the Board will forward these comments to participants."


 

28 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Given Google's reply reproduced below, its request for leave to intervene in the above-referenced matter is granted.

Dear Mr. McDougall,

The period for commenting on Google's request for leave to intervene in the above-reference proceeding has now passed and Google has been copied on comments from CSI, SODRAC and SOCAN. None of the collectives oppose Google's request.

Both CSI's and SOCAN's consent was conditional on Google being subject to the same obligations as other objectors, particularly with respect to the requirement to respond to interrogatories. SODRAC agreed with CSI.

Google is well aware that the Board's usual practice is to grant to interveners the same rights as are granted to parties and to impose on interveners the same obligations as are imposed on parties. Google has not asked the Board to deviate from its usual practice in this case.

Google understands that, if its request for leave to intervene is granted, it will be required to respond to interrogatories according to the schedule that is set by the Board.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

Regards,

Jay Kerr-Wilson
Counsel to Google Inc.


 

27 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

SOCAN shall respond to the attached Sirius' request by no later than Thursday, November 29, 2012. Sirius shall reply by no later than Monday, December 3, 2012.

Attachment: DOCS-#12001726-v1-Sirius XM Final Submission to Copyright Board Nov 26, 2012 3 .pdf


 

26 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The following timetable, which the parties submitted, shall govern the exchange of information and arguments concerning the tariffs' administrative provisions.

1) Access Copyright shall file its comments on the draft administrative provisions no later than Friday, January 18, 2013. More specifically, Access shall state whether it is content with the wording and administrative provisions as gazetted or whether it proposes certain changes. It shall set out why Access wants the tariff to be worded as it proposes (purpose of every provision). It shall address the wording and administrative issues already raised by the objectors, and especially those raised in paragraphs 23 to 33 of Exhibit BC-1. It will finally indicate, with explanation, the transitional provisions Access wants to be included in the tariff.

2) The Objectors shall respond no later than Friday, March 29, 2013. The Objectors will explain what they accept and what they do not; where appropriate, they will propose alternative solutions. British Columbia is free to discuss in more detail the issues raised in paragraphs 23 to 33 of Exhibit BC-1.

3) Access Copyright shall reply to the Objectors' comments no later than Friday, April 26, 2013.


 

23 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties can respond to the attached Google's request for leave to intervene by no later than Tuesday, November 27, 2012. Google can reply no later than Thursday, November 29, 2012.

Attachment: DM_OTT-#110076-v1-Letter to Copyright Board Nov 201 2012 on behalf of Google.pdf


 

23 novembre 2012flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As an objector to SOCAN Tariff 22.A for 2013, Sirius is asked to indicate no later than Monday, November 26, 2012 whether it would agree with the attached proposed schedule, agreed upon by the other parties.

Attachment: 12-11-18 LETTER TO Gilles McDougall re scheduling of Online Music Services proceedings (2011-2013).pdf


 

26 juillet 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The scheduling of the hearing for the 2011-2013 tariffs is suspended until the Board settles the question of how the 2007 to 2010 decision will proceed.


 

20 juillet 2012

ORDER OF THE BOARD

The decisions the Supreme Court of Canada issued on July 12, 2012 (the "Decisions") require that the Board modify, sometimes significantly, the tariff and reasons it was soon to release in the above-referenced matter. In particular, the Board is of the preliminary view that SOCAN is no longer entitled to a tariff for permanent downloads or limited downloads and that listening to previews constitutes fair dealing for the purpose of research in 2007-2010 just as it did in 1996-2006. Some other adjustments might also be necessary.

The Board is considering three ways to deal with the consequences of the Decisions on the above-referenced matter.

1) The Board can proceed to adjust the reasons and tariffs without further input from the parties. The resulting decision may account somewhat imprecisely for the longer-term impact of the Decisions, but it could be issued fairly rapidly. The Board would then proceed without delay with the examination of the tariffs for the years 2011 and following, at which time the full impact of the Decisions would be accounted for.

2) The Board can seek further input from the parties. This may take the form of arguments only, or may require some additional evidence. The Board would then render its decision based on the existing record and on the additional input of the parties. This would allow the Board to better account for the impact of the Decisions. It would also postpone the final decision by several months.

3) The Board can fully re-open the matter and join it with the examination of the tariffs for the years 2011 and following. The full impact of the Decisions would be accounted for. This approach would require a new evidence-gathering process (including interrogatories). A decision would not likely be issued until the end of 2013.

Approach number 3 presents a procedural hurdle. The member of the panel currently seized of the above-referenced matter who is no longer a member of the Board cannot deal with the tariffs for the years 2011 and following. However, with the unanimous consent of the parties, it should be possible to remit the matter for 2007-2010 to a panel of current members, to join that matter with the tariffs for the years 2011 and following and to treat the record for 2007-2010 as part of the record of the joint proceedings.

The Board favors option 1.

Parties are invited to communicate to the Board their views on all these issues no later than on Friday, August 3, 2012. Parties will be allowed to respond to the view of others no later than on Friday, August 17, 2012.


 

11 juillet 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The June 21, 2012 application of CSI is denied, essentially for the reason that the parties cannot adequately prepare for the 2011-2013 proceeding without reading the Board's forthcoming decision for 2007-2010. That decision should be issued before Labour Day. Since the 2011-2013 proceeding will not be a matter of first impression, eight months is sufficient to prepare for a hearing. Consequently, parties are asked to discuss a possible timetable that would begin with Interrogatories being exchanged in September, 2012 and end with a hearing starting no later than June 18, 2013.


 

21 juin 2012

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The objectors in the above-mentioned file are asked to file their response to the attached CSI's request (supported by SOCAN and SODRAC) by no later than Tuesday, June 26, 2012. The collectives may reply by no later than Friday, June 29, 2012.

Attachment: 12-06-21 Letter to Gilles McDougall re scheduling of Online tariff proceeding.pdf


 

27 mai 2011

Please note that the following ruling has been rendered by the Board on Thursday, May 26, 2011, in English only. It is being resent in both official languages.

Veuillez noter que l'ordonnance qui suit a été rendue par la Commission le jeudi 26 mai 2011, en anglais seulement. Elle est maintenant renvoyée dans les deux langues officielles. 

[Le texte français suit l'anglais]

RULING OF THE BOARD

The examination of the proposed Online Music Services Tariffs of CSI and SOCAN for the years 2011 and 2012 as well as of the proposed SODRAC Tariff 6 (Online Music Services - Music Videos) for 2010-2012 are merged. The process will be triggered as soon as the CSI Online Music Services Tariff (2008-2010) and SOCAN Tariff 22.A (2007-2010) are certified.

__________________________________

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

L'examen des projets de tarifs de CSI et de la SOCAN à l'égard des services de musique en ligne pour les années 2011 et 2012, de même que celui du projet de tarif 6 (Services de musique en ligne - Vidéos de musique) de la SODRAC pour les années 2010 à 2012 sont fusionnés. Le processus sera enclenché dès que les tarifs de CSI (2008-2010) et de la SOCAN (2007-2010) à l'égard des services de musique en ligne seront homologués.


 

26 mai 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

The examination of the proposed Online Music Services Tariffs of CSI and SOCAN for the years 2011 and 2012 as well as of the proposed SODRAC Tariff 6 (Online Music Services - Music Videos) for 2010-2012 are merged. The process will be triggered as soon as the CSI Online Music Services Tariff (2008-2010) and SOCAN Tariff 22.A (2007-2010) are certified.


 

13 mai 2011

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les projets de tarifs de CSI pour l'année 2012 ont été publiés dans la Gazette du Canada le 30 avril 2011 et sont maintenant affiches sur le site Web de la Commission (www.cbcda.gc.ca) sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Tarifs proposes pour 2012 » .

Ils sont :

Tarif pour les stations de radio non commerciales (2012)
Tarif pour les services de musique en ligne (2012)

La date pour s'opposer aux projets de tarifs est le mercredi 29 juin 2011.


 

4 mai 2011

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

In its Ruling of April 29, 2011 (attached for convenience) [See April 29, 2011 ruling entry below], the Board invited comments on its preliminary view that the examination of proposed tariffs SODRAC 6, SOCAN 22.A and CSI Online Music Services should all proceed according to the same schedule. The Board does not wish to receive any comment on the possible examination of proposed Re:Sound tariffs 8.A and 8.B at the same time, since the Board intends to proceed as per its ruling of January 26, 2011 (also attached) [see January 26, 2011 entry in the file Re:Sound 8.A and 8.B] and hear the matter independently.

With respect to proposed Re:Sound tariffs 8.A and 8.B, parties are reminded that the Board asked them on January 26, 2011 to submit a mutually acceptable schedule of proceedings. Since no proposal has been made yet, the Board sets as Friday, May 27, 2011, the date by which parties may submit such a proposed schedule. After that date, the Board will proceed to set the schedule without the benefit of the parties' point of view.


 

29 avril 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

On February 24, 2011, CSI asked that the Board set in motion the process leading to the examination and certification of its proposed Online Music Services Tariffs for 2011 and 2012 without waiting for the Board to certify the corresponding tariff for 2008-2010, a matter currently under advisement. The application is denied.

However, the Board is of the preliminary view that the examination of the proposed Online Music Services Tariffs of CSI and SOCAN should again be merged for the years 2011 and 2012. The Board is also of the preliminary view that the examination of the proposed SODRAC Tariff 6 (Online Music Services - Music Videos) for 2010-2012 should proceed at the same time. This process should be triggered as soon as the CSI Online Music Services Tariff (2008-2010) and SOCAN Tariff 22.A (2007-2010) are certified.

Parties are asked to comment on the Board's preliminary view by no later than Friday, May 20, 2011.


29 avril 2011

RULING OF THE BOARD

On January 25, 2011, SOCAN asked that the Board set in motion the process leading to the examination and certification of its proposed tariffs 22.D (Audiovisual Webcasts) and G (User Generated Content) for the year 2011, along with the corresponding proposed tariffs for the years 2007 to 2010, which SOCAN identified as items 22.4 (Audiovisual Webcasts) for 2007-2008 and 22.D (Audiovisual Webcasts) for 2009-1010. SOCAN also proposed a schedule of proceedings leading to such a hearing.

The application generated a significant number of comments and proposals. Some asked that all SOCAN Internet tariffs be heard at the same time. Some suggested that Re:Sound's Internet tariffs be examined with SOCAN's. Others asked that specific tariff items of interest to them be examined separately. SOCAN and Re:Sound opposed any widening of the issues. Many asked that the process not be set in motion until the Board has certified the CSI and SOCAN Online Music Services tariffs that are currently under advisement.

The motion is granted in part. The examination of proposed SOCAN tariffs 22.D and G (2011) will proceed jointly, but only to the extent that they target the use of musical works in non-simulcast, audio-visual transmissions other than video games. The examination of proposed SOCAN tariffs 22.4 (2007-2008) and 22.D (2009-2010) will proceed at the same time. So will the examination of proposed SOCAN tariffs 22.7 (Other Sites, 2007-2008) and 22.G (Other Sites, 2009-2010), to the extent that they target user generated content as described in proposed SOCAN tariff 22.G (2011).

The reasons to so proceed are as follows:

Non-simulcast, audio-visual transmissions are prima facie sufficiently distinct from other forms of music offerings over the Internet to deserve separate examination. Audio-visual offerings probably dominate music uses targeted in proposed tariff 22.G for 2011; postponing the examination of audio-only user generated content will allow the Board to focus on the lion's share of that activity. As for simulcast uses of music, they generally are so strongly associated to a principal use that they should be examined at the same time as that principal use.

Video games are non-simulcast, audio-visual transmissions. However, since neither SOCAN nor the relevant objectors wish this item to be examined with tariffs 22.D and G, there is no need to consider the issue.

Focussing on audio-visual products restricts the number of objectors: hence, those who only supply audio transmissions need not participate. It also makes it moot to decide whether to examine any corresponding Re:Sound or CSI proposed tariffs at the same time, since such tariffs do not exist.

Merging the examination of all Internet tariffs would create more problems than it would solve. To do so would make no more sense than, for example, merging the examination of all tariff items dealing with the use of music by all radio and television services. Contrary to what some objectors argued, it is quite possible to migrate from user-based to use-based tariffs without examining all Internet tariffs in a single hearing. Currently, both types of tariffs coexist; tariff 22.A (Online Music Services) is use-based while all other tariff 22 items are user-based. Any transition issues created by moving from one type of tariff to the other can be addressed through proper tariff wording.

There is no need to postpone the examination of these tariff items until the Board certifies the SOCAN and CSI Online Music Services tariffs, currently under advisement. The issues raised by audio-visual transmissions probably are sufficiently different to warrant separate consideration. There will be plenty of time for the parties to adjust their approach once the decision under advisement is rendered, if they so wish. However, since the schedule SOCAN proposed is now moot, the Board asks the parties to present a new scheduling proposal, preferably jointly, by no later than Friday, May 27, 2011.

SOCAN identified the proposed tariffs that should be examined together as tariff 22.4 (Audiovisual Webcasts) for 2007-2008, tariff 22.D (Audiovisual Webcasts) for 2009-1010 and tariffs 22.D (Audiovisual Webcasts) and 22.G (User Generated Content) for 2011. Out of an abundance of caution, the examination of proposed SOCAN tariffs 22.7 (Other Sites, 2007-2008) and 22.G (Other Sites, 2009-2010) will also be joined to these proceedings, to the extent that they target user generated content as described in proposed SOCAN tariff 22.G (2011).



Copie privée (2017)


 

16 décembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-099]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d’auteur du Canada a rendu sa décision à l’égard du tarif des redevances à percevoir par la SCPCP en 2017 sur la vente, au Canada, de supports audio vierges. Elle est maintenant affichée sur le site web de la Commission sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Décisions récentes » à : http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/home-accueil-f.html, accompagnée du tarif homologué pour 2017 tel que publié dans la Gazette du Canada
 

22 juillet 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-076]

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-076] idans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2016-07-22-CB-CDA 2016-076.pdf


 

3 mai 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-039]

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

Suite à la demande de la SCPCP en date du 29 avril 2016, vous trouverez ci-joint l’ordonnance de confidentialité [CB-CDA 2016-039] de la Commission.

p.j. : ORD-2016-05-03-CB-CDA 2016-039.pdf


 

18 février 2016up arrow

[CB-CDA 2016-015]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Suite à sa demande, la SCPCP doit déposer son énoncé de cause au plus tard le vendredi 13 mai 2016. La Commission établira les prochaines étapes à une date ultérieure.


 

20 novembre 2015up arrow

[CB-CDA 2015-072]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Le Projet de tarif des redevances à percevoir par la SCPCP sur la vente, au Canada, de supports audio vierges pour l’année 2017 sera publié dans la Gazette du Canada, demain, le 21 novembre 2015. Le projet de tarif est maintenant affiché sur notre site web (www.cb-cda.gc.ca), sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf - Tarifs proposés pour 2017 ».

La date limite pour s'opposer au projet de tarif est le mercredi 20 janvier 2016.



Tarifs de la SOCAN et de Ré:Sonne – Services sonores payants, 2007-2016


 

6 mars 2017flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2017-012]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

As requested by Re:Sound and with the consent of all parties, the deadline for the parties to provide a detailed schedule of tasks to be completed as part of the repertoire study, as well as the deadline dates for their completion has been extended to Friday, March 10, 2017.

p.j. : Letter from J. Cotter March 6, 2017 re Notice of the Board Mar 1, 2017 [....pdf


 

12 mars 2017flèche par en haut

Vous trouverez ci-joint l’avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-011] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2017-03-01-CB-CDA 2017-011.pdf


 

7 février 2017flèche par en haut

Vous trouverez ci-joint l’avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-010] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2017-02-07-CB-CDA 2017-010.pdf


 

19 janvier 2017flèche par en haut

Vous trouverez ci-joint les avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2017-005 et CB-CDA 2017-006] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. :

NOT-2017-01-19-CB-CDA 2017-005.pdf
NOT-2017-01-19-CB-CDA 2017-006.pdf


 

4 janvier 2017flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2017-002]

ORDONNANCE DE LA COMMISSION

On June 7, 2016, in Notice 2016-047, the Board indicated to the Parties that:

The Board is of the preliminary view that a study should be done jointly by the Parties on the use of the music repertoire of each collective society. The Board will communicate with the Parties shortly for the purpose of establishing such a study and examining whether the Schedule of Proceedings need to be adjusted.

Since that time, the Board has been informed by the Parties on several occasions that they are jointly discussing such a study, and would attempt to jointly propose a methodology to the Board.

However, it is now more than 6 months later, and the Parties have not yet submitted any such proposal. Therefore, the Board hereby orders the Parties to submit a detailed update on their discussions of a joint study on the use of music repertoire of each collective society and an identification of any outstanding issues. The update is to include issues or elements of a study on which the Parties agree, as well as those issues or elements of a study that have been identified, but on which there is not an agreement among the Parties.

The Parties shall respond by Wednesday, January 11, 2017. If they so choose, the Parties may file their response jointly.


 

4 janvier 2017flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2017-001]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

On December 22, 2016, Re:Sound, with the consent of SOCAN and the Objectors, wrote to the Board requesting that the hearing scheduled to commence on April 25, 2017 be postponed to May 2, 2017.

As a result, the remainder of the schedule of proceeding is now as follows:

Filing of responding statements of case: no later than Friday, February 24, 2017;

Filing of reply statements of case: no later than Tuesday, April 18, 2017;

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board’s hearing room.


 

8 décembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-096]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-096] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-12-08 - CB-CDA 2016-096 - Question 9.pdf


 

4 novembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-091]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une décision de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-091] traitant sur les requêtes aux réponses incomplètes / insatisfaisantes dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

P.J. : RUL-2016-11-04 - CB-CDA 2016-091.pdf


 

12 octobre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-085]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une décision de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-085] traitant sur les requêtes aux réponses incomplètes / insatisfaisantes dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-10-12-CB-CDA 2016-085.pdf


 

30 septembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-082]

The extension request below is granted.


From: Jay Kerr-Wilson
Sent: September-30-16 11:21 AM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Levac, Roch: CB-CDA; Gabriel Van Loon; K. Simmons; J. Cotter; B. Fong; L. Watt; M. Estabrooks, Y. Wexler
Subject: Digital Pay Audio - deadline to serve complete interrogatory responses

Dear Mr. McDougall,

According to the schedule approved by the Board in the SOCAN and Re:Sound Digital Pay Audio proceeding, parties are supposed to serve complete and satisfactory interrogatory responses today. As the Board has not yet issued it Ruling on the parties’ deficiency motions, the BDUs request that today’s deadline be suspended and that the Board establish a new deadline to serve complete and satisfactory responses when it issues its Ruling.

Regards,
Jay Kerr-Wilson | Partner


 

30 septembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-082]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une Ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-081] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-09-30-CB-CDA 2016-081.pdf


 

30 septembre 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-081]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une Ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-081] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-09-30-CB-CDA 2016-081.pdf


 

July 21, 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-074]

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-074] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique. Veuillez noter que l’avis contient de l’information hautement confidentielle.

p.j. : NOT-2016-07-21-CB-CDA 2016-074 (PUBLIC)


 

12 juillet 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-068]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-068] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : ORD-2016-07-11-CB-CDA 2016-068.pdf


 

1 juillet 2016flèche par en haut

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-067]

On June 7, 2016, the Board ordered SOCAN to answer Interrogatory Questions 7, 8 and 9 put to it by the Objectors, “with respect to themselves and a representative random sample of their membership.” See [CB-CDA 2016-047]

On June 24, 2016, SOCAN wrote to the Board stating that SOCAN and the Objectors were not able to come to an agreement on what constitutes a representative sample. Both proposed a different composition of the sample. More importantly, both SOCAN and the Objectors were of the view that a random sample will likely not be useful or meaningful. As such, the Board rescinded its ruling in relation to Questions 7, 8 and 9. Instead, it ordered SOCAN to file with the Board any amended response it may have to the Objectors’ proposed sample, being aware that it may not be random, nor representative. See [CB-CDA 2016-065]

On July 5, 2016, SOCAN responded that it had no further submissions on the issue.

Therefore, SOCAN will answer Questions 7, 8 and 9 for itself and for the sample proposed by the Objectors, as described in SOCAN’s June 24 letter.

The Objectors are to file all answers to Questions 7, 8 and 9 with the Board. They may wait to do so until the Board has ruled on the sufficiency of those answers, if there is a motion relating thereto; otherwise, it shall file the answers when they are received.


 

29 juin 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-065]

Vous trouverez ci-joint une ordonnance de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-065] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : RUL-2016-06-29-CB-CDA 2016-065.pdf


 

22 juin 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-059]

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-059] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : NOT-2016-06-22-CB-CDA 2016-059.pdf


 

21 juin 2016flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

[CB-CDA 2016-058]

La demande de prorogation de délai ci-dessous est accordée. Les "Collectives" peuvent répondre au plus tard le lundi 27 juin 2016.

**********

De : J. Cotter
Envoyé : June-21-16 3:44 PM
À : G. McDougall
Cc : N. Campanella; G. van Loon; K. Simmons; J. Kerr-Wilson; A. Thomas; D. Kent; L. Watt; M. Estabrooks; B. Fong; C. Seto
Objet : RE: SOCAN-Re:Sound Pay Audio Services Tariffs, 2007-2016 - Notice [CB-CDA 2016-053]

Dear Mr. McDougall,

In accordance with the Board’s Notice below, the Objectors filed yesterday their response to my letter of June 14, 2016.

On behalf of Re:Sound, I am writing to request an extension until Monday, June 27, 2016 of the June 22, 2016 deadline for Re:Sound to submit its reply. The reasons are that Melanie Hubbard of Re:Sound is out of the office this week until Thursday, June 23rd. In addition, I am in Court, along with Mr. Fong, Wednesday through Friday of this week.

The Objectors have consented to this request.

Respectfully submitted,

Osler
John Cotter


 

16 juin 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-054]

Vous trouverez ci-joint l’ordonnance de confidentialité de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-054] dans l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique.

p.j. : ORD-2016-06-16 - CB-CDA 2016-054.pdf


 

June 15, 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-053]

La demande ci-dessous est accordée. Les opposants doivent répondre à la correspondance en date du 14 juin 2016 de Me Cotter au plus tard le lundi 20 juin 2016. Les « Collectives » pourront déposer leur réplique au plus tard le mercredi 22 juin 2016..

******************************

From: Gabriel Van Loon
Sent: June-15-16 10:49 AM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: J. Cotter; B. FongL L. Watt; M. Estabrooks; K. Simmons; D. Kent; J. Kerr-Wilson; A. Thomas; C. Seto
Subject: SOCAN - Re:Sound Pay Audio (2007-2016) ReSound and SOCAN letter to Board - interrogatories

Mr. McDougall:

The Objectors request that the Board grant an opportunity to respond to the June 14, 2016 correspondence of John Cotter filed in respect of the SOCAN - Re:Sound Pay Audio (2007-2016) proceeding.

The Objectors propose to file their response(s) on or by Monday June 20, 2016.

Thank you, Gabriel

Gabriel V. van Loon


 

June 15, 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-052]

La Commission accorde les demandes de prorogation de délai des parties en date d’aujourd’hui et, conséquemment, adopte le restant du calendrier des procédures tel qu’énoncé ci-dessous :

Réponses aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 15 juillet 2016

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 12 août 2016

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux requêtes : au plus tard le vendredi 26 août 2016

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 30 septembre 2016

Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause des opposants : au plus tard le vendredi 25 novembre 2016

Dépôt des énoncés de cause en réponse : au plus tard le vendredi 3 février 2017

Dépôt des énoncés de cause en réplique : au plus tard le vendredi 31 mars 2017

Début de l’audience : le mardi 25 avril 2017 à 10h00, à la salle d’audience de la Commission.


 

7 juin 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-047]

Vous trouverez ci-joint la décision de la Commission [CB-CDA 2016-047] dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique..

Attachment: RUL-2016-06-07-CB-CDA 2016-047.pdf


 

1 mars 2016flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-022]

Further to the Board’s Notice of February 3, 2016, attached is the Directive on Procedure [CB-CDA 2016-022].

Attachment: DIR-2016-03-01 - CB-CDA 022 - Directive on Procedure - SOCAN Resound Pay Audio Services (2007-2016).pdf


 

8 février 2016flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

[CB-CDA 2016-012]

Please take note of the attached correspondence received in the above-noted matter.

Attachment: CKUA letter to the Board - February 3, 2016.pdf


 

3 février 2015flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-008]

La Commission adopte le calendrier des procédures ci-dessous, telle qu’accepté par les parties dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique, avec une audience débutant le mardi 25 avril 2017 :

Échange des demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 8 avril 2016

Oppositions aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 22 avril 2016

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux oppositions : au plus tard le vendredi 6 mai 2016

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le jeudi 30 juin 2016

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes/insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 5 août 2016

Dépôt, auprès de la Commission, des répliques aux requêtes : au plus tard le vendredi 26 août 2016

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 30 septembre 2016

Dépôt de l’énoncé de cause des opposants : au plus tard le vendredi 25 novembre 2016

Dépôt des énoncés de cause en réponse : au plus tard le vendredi 3 février 2017

Dépôt des énoncés de cause en réplique : au plus tard le vendredi 31 mars 2017

Début de l’audience : Mardi le 25 avril 2017 à 10h00 dans la salle d’audience de la Commission.

La directive sur la procédure suivra sous peu.


 

5 janvier 2015flèche par en haut

DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2016-002]

The matter related to the tariffs targeting pay audio services will proceed as follows:

1. The following tariffs are consolidated:

- SOCAN Pay Audio Services Tariff, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015;
- SOCAN Tariff 26 – Pay Audio Services Tariff, 2016;
- The pay audio component of SOCAN Tariff 22.2 – Audio Webcasts, 2007, 2008;
- The pay audio component of SOCAN Tariff 22.B – Audio Webcasts, 2009;
- The pay audio component of SOCAN Tariff 22.B – Audio Webcasts, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013;
- The pay audio component of SOCAN Tariff 22.B – Commercial Radio, Satellite Radio and Pay Audio, 2014, 2015, 2016;
- NRCC Pay Audio Services Tariff, 2010-2011;
- Re:Sound Pay Audio Services Tariff, 2012-2013 and 2014-2016;
- Re:Sound Tariff 2.B – Pay Audio Services Simulcasts, 2016;
- The pay audio services simulcast portion of Re:Sound Tariff 8 – Simulcasting, Non-Interactive Webcasting and Semi-Interactive Webcasting, 2013-2015; and,
- The pay audio services simulcast portion of Re:Sound Tariff 8.A – Simulcasting and Webcasting, 2009-2012.

The file will now be referred to as SOCAN-Re:Sound Pay Audio Services Tariffs, 2007-2016.

CKUA requests that a number of other tariffs targeting simulcast activities of various groups of users such as commercial radio, non-commercial radio and CBC also be consolidated in this matter. Re:Sound disagrees on the basis that this would not achieve procedural efficiencies. The Board agrees. What is meant to achieve with this matter is consolidation of tariffs targeting a single user, the pay audio services. Consolidating other tariffs as proposed by CKUA would require the participation of too many additional users with too diverse interests.

2. The remaining objectors are the following:

- Apple
- BDUs (Rogers, Shaw, Telus, Quebecor, Videotron, Bell, CCSA and Cogeco)
- CBC
- CKUA
- NCRA
- Stingray

Apple withdraws its objection to SOCAN Tariff 22.B (or 22.2) under the condition that the Board applies a specific, defined scope to the tariffs. The Board is unable to provide such clarification at this point in the process. Apple may wish to seek an agreement from SOCAN on the scope of this tariff and file this agreement with the Board. In the meantime however, Apple will continue to be considered as an objector with full participatory rights and obligations, unless it chooses to confirm its unconditional withdrawal from this matter.

NCRA withdraws “on the condition that the settlement agreement will be signed by all parties and the tariff will receive Board certification”. The Board cannot provide such assurances at this point. Unless NCRA confirms otherwise, it will continue to be considered as an objector with full participatory rights and obligations.

3. Both the BDUs and Stingray request leave to intervene with full participatory rights, to the extent they have not objected to one or more of the above-referenced tariffs for a given year or years, and the Board intends to include those years in a consolidated proceeding. The Board grants these two requests.

4. The hearing on this matter will begin on Tuesday, March 14, 2017. Parties are asked to file with the Board either a schedule of proceedings on which they will have agreed, or their individual scheduling proposals no later than Friday, January 29, 2016.


 

22 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2015-089]

Veuillez prendre note du courriel ci-dessous.

From: Bill Beckman
Sent: December-18-15 12:24 PM
To: McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc: Teri Budd; Nicole Babcock
Subject: RE: SOCAN and Re:Sound Pay Audio Services Tariffs for 2007 to 2016 / Tarifs de la SOCAN et de Ré:Sonne à l'égard des services sonors payants pour les années 2007 à 2016 [CB-CDA 2015-068]

Hi Gilles

Thank you for having sent us the draft list of participants in the above noted proceeding. On reviewing the list, it appears that our interests will be represented. Accordingly we will not need to be reinstated as an objector.

W.N. (Bill) Beckman



Radio commerciale - SOCAN 1.A (2011-2013); Ré:Sonne (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); Connect/SOPROQ (2012-2017); ARTISTI (2012-2014);


 

21 avril 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-036]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission du droit d’auteur du Canada vient de rendre sa décision portant sur le tarif pour la radio commerciale (SOCAN : 2011-2013; Ré:Sonne : 2012-2014; CSI : 2012-2013; Connect/SOPROQ : 2012-2017; Artisti : 2012-2014). La décision comporte de l’information confidentielle qui a été caviardée dans la version publique. Vous trouverez ci-joint les paragraphes de la décision contenant cette information confidentielle.

Une version publique des motifs ainsi qu’un communiqué de presse et un feuillet d’information sont affichés sur le site web de la Commission (www.cb-cda.gc.ca) sous la rubrique « Quoi de neuf – Décisions récentes ».

Le tarif homologué sera affiché sur le site au plus tard vendredi en fin de journée.

P.J. : (non disponible au public)


 

14 avril 2016flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2016-033]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The statements included in the attached document are to be included in the forthcoming decision of the Board.

CAB and Re:Sound are asked to indicate no later than Friday, April 15, 2016 whether these statements can be made public as they are.

P.J. : Not available


 

17 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2015-088]

The Board agrees with the proposed timetable as follows:

Comments on the Board’s preliminary view on the impact of CBC v. SODRAC: no later than Monday, January 18, 2016

Reply submissions to the comments on the Board’s preliminary view on the impact of CBC v. SODRAC: no later than Monday, January 25, 2016

Agreed position and/or respective comments on tariff wording: no later than Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Reply submissions on tariff wording: no later than Wednesday, February 3, 2016


 

15 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

[CB-CDA 2015-082]

La Commission a été informée que son avis du 11 décembre 2015, consultant les parties à l’égard de certains aspects du libellé du tarif, pourrait nécessiter des clarifications. Les paragraphes 11(3) et 11(5) du tarif, tels que reproduits dans l’annexe 2 de l’avis, font référence au paragraphe 8(2) du tarif. Ce paragraphe a volontairement été omis de l’avis aux parties.

Les parties sont maintenant informées que le paragraphe 8(2) du tarif met en œuvre les obligations additionnelles de rapport, telles que décrites dans le quatrième paragraphe de l’avis du 11 décembre, et qui se lit comme suit : « Le tarif comportera une obligation de rapport à l’égard de l’information nécessaire pour évaluer le degré de conformité d’une station à l’article 30.9 de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur pour ces trois types de reproduction. »


 

11 décembre 2015flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

[CB-CDA 2015-079]

La décision du 26 novembre 2015 de la Cour suprême du Canada dans Société Radio-Canada c. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2015 CSC 57 a énoncé les principes suivants à prendre en compte par la Commission lorsqu’elle procède à l’évaluation d’une licence :

  1. Neutralité technologique;
  2. Équilibre entre les droits des utilisateurs et ceux des titulaires de droit d’auteur, les facteurs pertinents incluant notamment les risques pris par l’utilisateur, l’ampleur de son investissement dans les nouvelles technologies ainsi que la nature de l’utilisation de l’œuvre protégée par le droit d’auteur dans la nouvelle technologie.

La Commission est d’avis préliminaire que ces principes n’ont pas d’impact sur l’affaire mentionnée en rubrique et que la réouverture de l’affaire n’est pas justifiée, pour la raison suivante. Au début du présent processus, les parties se sont entendues pour ne pas aborder la question de la valeur fondamentale de la musique. La Commission a accepté cette position. Puisque les principes énoncés ci-dessus sont au cœur de la question de la valeur fondamentale d’un droit, ces principes ne devraient avoir aucun impact sur les questions en examen dans la présente instance.

Si les parties sont d’accord, la Commission pourrait traiter de la décision de la Cour suprême en ajoutant des commentaires dans sa décision sur la présente affaire, expliquant son point de vue tel que décrit ci-dessus. Les principes de la Cour suprême pourraient toutefois être abordés lors d’un examen futur des tarifs de la radio commerciale, dans la mesure où ils s’appliquent.

Les parties doivent soumettre leurs commentaires sur l’avis préliminaire de la Commission exprimé ci-dessus au plus tard le jeudi 24 décembre 2015. Les parties pourront répliquer au plus tard le vendredi 8 janvier 2016.


 

11 décembre, 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-078]

Vous trouverez ci-joint un avis de la Commission au sujet du dossier mentionné en rubrique [CB-CDA 2015-078].

P.J : NOT-2015-12-11 CB-CDA 2015-078.pdf


 

20 novembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-071]

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Suite aux avis de la Commission du 5 novembre 2015 [CB-CDA 2015-067] et du 10 novembre 2015 [CB-CDA 2015-068], la SOCAN et Ré:Sonne peuvent répondre, au plus tard le lundi 23 novembre 2015, à la requête de Stingray (ci-jointe) pour la tenue d’une audience consolidée et que celle-ci débute avant la fin de l’année 2016. Stingray peut répliquer aux commentaires reçus par les sociétés de gestion ainsi qu’aux commentaires reçus des opposants au plus tard le lundi 30 novembre 2015.

Attachment: 1) Stingray’s Request to merge files (2015-10-26).pdf


 

10 novembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-068]

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Les échéances dans l’avis de la Commission émis le 5 novembre 2015 [CB-CDA 2015-067] sont modifiées comme suit :

Les parties doivent répondre au plus tard le mardi 17 novembre 2015.

Stingray peut répliquer au plus tard le mardi 24 novembre 2015.

Pièce jointe : NOT-2015-11-05 - CB-CDA 2015-067.pdf


 

5 novembre 2015flèche par en haut

[CB-CDA 2015-067]

Ci-joint, un avis de la Commission [CB-CDA 2015-067] pour les dossiers mentionnés en rubrique.

Attachment: NOT-2015-11-05 - CB-CDA 2015-067.pdf


 

6 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

At paragraphs 161 to 164 of its February 14 written submissions, AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI raised an issue with respect to AVLA/SOPROQ low income rates. In its February 26, 2014 reply submissions, CAB mentioned that the issue was not previously raised in this proceeding and not directly related to any other pre-existing issues. CAB requested that the Board defer determination on this issue until it has provided CAB and other parties with sufficient time to respond.

CAB is asked to respond to the issue raised by AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI no later than Friday, March 14, 2014. AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI may reply no later than Friday, March 21, 2014.


 

6 mars 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Towards the end of the hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Member Majeau put a question to Mr. Chisick regarding the appropriateness of certifying a tariff structure where users could benefit from discounts under certain conditions. As examples, reference was made to SOCAN Tariffs 22.B-G and the SODRAC/CBC licence resulting from an arbitration proceeding before the Board.

At the end of the exchange, it was mentioned that the Board would issue a Notice seeking further clarification on the issue from the parties.

Upon further review of the transcripts, the Board considers that the parties' submissions are sufficient and that there is no need for further submissions for the time being.


 

18 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are asked to provide answers to the attached Board's questions by no later than Friday, February 28, 2014.

Attachment: Questions from the Board - Commercial Radio - Feb. 18, 2014.pdf


 

13 février 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board approves the proposals of the parties as described below.

De : Cotter, John
Envoyé : 12 février 2014 14:36
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : David Kent; Gabriel Van Loon; kathleen simmons; Chisick, Casey; Henein, Peter; Colette Matteau; Watt, Lynne; Estabrooks, Matthew; Annie Morin; Fong, Barry; Seto, Chi
Objet : Commercial Radio: SOCAN 1.A (2011-2013); Re:Sound (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); AVLA-SOPROQ (2012-2017); ARTISTI (2012-2014)

Mr. MacDougall,

I am writing on behalf of all counsel regarding two details associated with the filing of the written submissions.

Compendia

The initial proposal of counsel to the Board, which was approved in the Board's December 4th Notice, dealt with the timing of the filing of compendia as follows:

"On consent of all parties, we would propose to file the written submissions and compendia of evidence (extracts, not full exhibits, to be referred to in oral argument) no later than noon on Monday, January 27, 2014, with reply submissions and supplementary compendia to be filed no later than end of day on Wednesday, February 5, 2014."

Rather than having each party file two compendia, one with the initial submissions (now due on February 14th) and a supplementary one with the reply submissions (now due on February 26th), counsel are proposing that each party simply file one compendium and that it be filed with the reply written submissions.

Joint Book of Authorities

The initial proposal of counsel to the Board, which was approved in the Board's December 4th Notice, dealt with the joint book of authorities as follows, without any reference to timing:

"Counsel have also agreed to cooperate to prepare a joint book of authorities, to avoid the inevitable duplication as we all refer to the same Board decisions and key cases, and to prepare compendia of evidence (extracts, not full exhibits) to be referred to in oral argument. With the Board's consent, we would propose to file the joint book of authorities in electronic form [on CDs or on USB sticks, according to the Board's preference] and to insert only the pinpoint references in our compendia."

Counsel are proposing that the joint book of authorities also be filed with the reply written submissions.

We respectfully request that the Board approve the above proposals.

John Cotter


 

23 janvier 2014flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board confirms that the files mentioned above will proceed as follows, and as agreed between the parties:

Commercial Radio: SOCAN (2012-2013); Re:Sound (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); AVLA/SOPROQ (2012-2017); ArtistI (2012-2014)

Filing with the Board of Factums: no later than Friday, February 14, 2014.

Filing with the Board of Replies to Factums: no later than Wednesday, February 26, 2014.

Oral Argument: Monday, March 3, 2014 and Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

Online Music Services (2011-2013)

Filing with the Board of Factums: no later than Thursday, March 13, 2014.

Filing with the Board of Replies to Factums: no later than Wednesday, April 23, 2014.

Oral Argument: Monday, May 12, 2014 and Tuesday, May 13, 2014.

The schedule set by the Board for responding to its questions of January 16, 2014 in the Online Music Services file remains.


 

4 décembre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board approves the following proposal.

De : Henein, Peter
Envoyé : 28 novembre 2013 15:01
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : Chisick, Casey; Colette Matteau; Estabrooks, Matthew; Gabriel Van Loon; Kathleen Simmons; David Kent; Lynne Watt; Pinos, Timothy; Zagar, Jessica; Mayzel, Eric; Jonathan O'Hara; Sarah Kilpatrick; Fong, Barry
Objet : Commercial Radio: SOCAN 1.A (2012-2013); Re:Sound (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); AVLA/SOPROQ (2012-2017); ArtistI (2012-2014) [IWOV-Legal.FID1784700]

Dear Gilles,

Further to the Chairman's direction, counsel for all parties have conferred with respect to the preparation and filing of the written submissions and the presentation of final argument. On consent of all parties, we would propose to file the written submissions and compendia of evidence (extracts, not full exhibits, to be referred to in oral argument) no later than noon on Monday, January 27, 2014, with reply submissions and supplementary compendia to be filed no later than end of day on Wednesday, February 5, 2014. The dates for filing materials have been adjusted to reflect the new hearing dates of February 10 and 11.

Counsel have agreed on the following which we would like to propose to the Board: written submissions will not exceed 60 pages "per side" (i.e. 60 pages for the Collectives and 60 pages for the Objector), with reply not to exceed 15 pages. We have further agreed to allocate the pages for the submissions as follows, subject to deviation of no more than a page or two in either direction:

Written Submissions

  • Reproduction and Valuation Issues: 25 pages in the initial submission
  • Rate Base Issue (i.e., Station Rate Base Model vs. Group Rate Base Model): 15 pages in the initial submission
  • Administrative Provisions and s. 69(2): 20 pages in the initial submission

Reply Submissions

  • The parties shall allocate the 15 pages as they see fit with respect to the issues.

These page limits and allocations assume no less than 1.5 line spacing and 11 point Arial font (or 12 point Times New Roman font) and either endnotes or footnotes, at each party's discretion. Endnotes, table of contents, and list of authorities cited would not count as part of the 60 pages/15 pages.

Counsel have also agreed to cooperate to prepare a joint book of authorities, to avoid the inevitable duplication as we all refer to the same Board decisions and key cases, and to prepare compendia of evidence (extracts, not full exhibits) to be referred to in oral argument. With the Board's consent, we would propose to file the joint book of authorities in electronic form [on CDs or on USB sticks, according to the Board's preference] and to insert only the pinpoint references in our compendia.

We would also propose to divide up the time for oral argument as follows:

  • Monday, February 10, 2014 for the CAB reproduction issues: CAB 2.5 hrs; AVLA/SOPROQ-CSI 2.5 hrs; reply CAB 0.5 hr.
  • Tuesday, February 11, 2014 for the Collectives issues: Re:Sound (Admin provisions and s.69(2)) 1.25 hrs; AVLA/SOPROQ (rate base) 1.25 hrs; CAB 2.5 hrs.; Collectives reply 0.5 hr.

We respectfully request that the Board approve the above proposal.

Best,

Peter Henein


 

10 octobre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

SOCAN shall provide an answer to the following questions by no later than Friday, November 8, 2013. SOCAN's responses will be made part of the record in respect of the above-mentioned file. Should they so wish, parties may provide comments on SOCAN's responses at any time.

Questions to SOCAN:

Subsection 69(2) of the Copyright Act deals with "public performances by means of any radio receiving set" which may apply to musical works in SOCAN's repertoire as well as sound recordings in Re:Sound's repertoire, and provides that the owner or user of the radio receiving set may be exempted from paying royalties.

Given the reference to possible different interpretations of subsection 69(2) of the Copyright Act during testimony before the Board on October 8, 2013, the Board requests that SOCAN provide in writing its interpretation of the scope of subsection 69(2) of the Copyright Act and an explanation of how it is being applied to users.

In addition, and only if the information is readily available, SOCAN should also provide some measure of the extent to which users benefit from subsection 69(2), such as the number and a relative measure of such users.


 

2 octobre 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board agrees with the schedule as proposed by the parties, subject to two comments. First, the Board is willing to sit until 5 pm every day except Fridays, if this can help shorten the hearing. Second, since there is only one witness to be heard on the last day, October 23, and for a maximum of only 2 hours, having this witness heard on one of the two preceding days would further reduce the hearing time.

De : Watt, Lynne
Envoyé : 30 septembre 2013 11:44
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : David Kent; Chisick, Casey; Cotter, John; bureau matteaupoirier.com; Henein, Peter; Gabriel Van Loon; Kathleen Simmons; Sarah Kilpatrick; Fong, Barry; Estabrooks, Matthew
Objet : Commercial Radio - Proposed Hearing Schedule

Dear Gilles,

On behalf of the Collectives and the CAB, I am forwarding a proposed schedule for the upcoming Commercial Radio hearing that we have agreed and are proposing to the Board. The parties have worked cooperatively to minimize the travel for out-of-town witnesses and to give as much certainty as possible as to the days on which they will testify. We have also tried to shorten the hearing (by, for example, foregoing oral evidence in chief and cross-examination of certain witnesses (e.g. Silke von Lewinski and Benoit Gauthier).

In preparing this schedule we have used a 4:30 end time for the day to give us flexibility and, as the Board is often prepared to do, to sit later if needed to accommodate a witness. We have also assumed that (other than on the first day) the hearing will start at 9:30, run to approximately 4:30, with breaks in the morning and afternoon and a lunch break from 12:30-2:00. We are suggesting that the Board consider starting early on the first Friday, October 11th, to ensure that we do not run long on that day when everyone will be wanting to travel home for the Thanksgiving weekend. We are also proposing that the Board not sit on Tuesday, October 15th, so that none of the witnesses has to travel on Thanksgiving day (which would also benefit counsel and the Board); we can use the Tuesday to travel to Ottawa and to prepare the next days' witnesses.

The parties would also like to propose that closing arguments and legal briefs be pushed off until the new year. As the Board knows, many of the counsel on the Commercial Radio hearing are also involved in the Online Music proceeding and have, amongst other things, reply cases due on November 1st, as well as witnesses to prepare for the hearing starting on November 19th. We would propose that the parties file their written legal briefs on or before Friday, January 24, 2014 and attend to present oral argument before the Board on February 4 and 5, 2014 (if these dates are convenient for the Board). We are also proposing that we file full legal briefs (in the nature of factums containing a review of the relevant evidence and law), rather than just outlines of oral argument, as a number of the issues are novel and complicated.

Finally, we have confirmed that all witnesses will be testifying in English and that none of the counsel intends to conduct any examination or cross-examination in French.

If the Board has any questions or concerns about the proposed schedule, counsel can make themselves available for a conference call this week (or an attendance in person on Monday, October 7th).

Lynne

D. Lynne Watt


 

14 août 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

The parties' request, attached, is granted. AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI may file their Responding Statement of Case no later than Friday, September 20, 2013.

Attachment: 13-08-14 - Letter to Gilles McDougall re CAB interrogatories.pdf


 

7 août 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

La Commission prend acte de l'entente entre AVLA/SOPROQ, ArtistI et l'ACR telle que décrite dans la requête ci-jointe. Conformément à cette entente, la Commission confirme que les questions faisant l'objet de l'entente n'ont pas à être examinées dans le cadre des audiences et ne nécessiteront pas de dépôt de preuve de la part d'aucune des parties.

Attachment: 13-08-06 Letter to Gilles McDougall re Resolved Issues.pdf


 

4 juillet 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISISON

Veuillez trouver ci-joint la décision de la Commission concernant les requêtes pour réponses insatisfaisantes dans le dossier mentionné en rubrique.

Attachment: Ruling - Commercial Radio - Deficiency Motions - July 4, 2013.pdf


 

13 juin 2013flèche par en haut

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Re:Sound and ArtistI shall provide to CAB the information they offered in response to CAB's interrogatories 53 and 58 and referred to in Mr. Bloom's letter of June 12, 2013. The information shall be treated as confidential for the purposes of interrogatories.

An order directing Re:Sound and ArtistI to disclose the information to other parties in these proceedings would be misdirected, premature and prima facie unnecessary. Misdirected because it is CAB, not Re:Sound or ArtistI, who would be filing the information as part of its case. Premature both because information responsive to an interrogatory is provided only to the party who asked that interrogatory and because even CAB does not yet know whether it will file the information as part of its case. Prima facie unnecessary because information on music use by a commercial radio station or on the use of radio receiving sets in public places is, prima facie, not confidential.

Confidentiality may be claimed for this information if and when it is filed with the Board as part of the CAB's evidence.


 

7 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The study may proceed with the documents as filed yesterday by AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI, except for the French versions of the invitation letter and of the proposed survey which contain minor revisions.


 

5 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

The Board approves the two matters as described below.

De : Chisick, Casey
Envoyé : 5 juin 2013 10:18
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : David Kent; Gabriel Van Loon; Kathleen Simmons; Colette Matteau; Pinos, Timothy; Henein, Peter; Zagar, Jessica
Objet : Commercial Radio - online survey

Gilles,

Further to our letter of May 29, 2013, AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI wish to inform the Board of two minor changes to the form of online survey to be conducted in connection with this proceeding and to ask that the Board confirm its approval of these two matters in addition to those set out in our original letter.

First, as a result of a bug in the SurveyGizmo software that interfered with the randomization of the rating question in the manner prescribed by the Board, we now intend to use a different software application, SawTooth, to administer the online survey. Second, because SawTooth does not offer "drag and drop" functionality, stations will now be asked to respond to the ranking question simply by assigning a number to each type of copy they make, with 1 being the highest-ranked copy. Apart from that, the content of the proposed survey remains the same.

CMC

Casey M. Chisick


 

5 juin 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

As requested in their letter of May 29, 2013 to the Board, AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI are granted the right to reply to today's submissions of CAB, reproduced below, by no later than Thursday, June 6, 2013.

De : Gabriel Van Loon
Envoyé : 5 juin 2013 14:20
À : McDougall, Gilles: CB-CDA
Cc : lynne.watt; Matthew Estabrooks; Bloom, Glen; Cotter, John; Fong, Barry; colette; Chisick, Casey; Pinos, Timothy; Henein, Peter; Zagar, Jessica; amorin; Kathleen Simmons; david.kent
Objet : Re: Commercial Radio/Radio commerciale - SOCAN (2011-2013); Re:Sound/Ré:Sonne (2012-2014); CSI (2012-2013); AVLA-SOPROQ (2012-2017); ARTISTI (2012-2014) - Ruling of the Board re: AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI's request

Gilles -

As indicated on May 29, the CAB will facilitate the survey and forward on the cover letter to the 212 affected broadcasters. We accept the cover letter as drafted at Appendix B of the May 29 submission of Mr. Chisick subject to some minor changes as reflected in the attached document. The first changes we propose make it clear that this survey is the result of a Board order. The second change we have indicated in the attached ensures that the letter takes into account that not all forms of copy listed are generated by all stations, something we understand is already contemplated in the survey design. We feel that these proposed changes are non-contentious, and if accepted, we will proceed to administer the survey as soon requested by the Board and instructed by the Collectives.

We respectfully request that we are given the chance to test the survey in advance of sending out invitations to our clients to participate, so that we can ensure there are no confusing elements or technical glitches. We make this request to try to avoid any unnecessary burden on our clients in the event that there any issues with the survey or survey platform. We do not expect to make any substantive recommendations at that point in the process.

Finally, we request that the Board oblige Mr. Chisick to furnish the CAB with full survey results, in a manipulable form, once available to him and his clients.

Van Loon Simmons Professional Corporation


 

23 mai 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Veuillez prendre note de la décision de la Commission ci-jointe concernant une requête de AVLA/SOPROQ et CSI à l'égard d'un sondage en ligne.

Attachment : Décision - radio commerciale - 23 mai 2013.pdf


 

9 mai 2013flèche par en haut

AVIS DE LA COMMISSION

Pour faire suite aux représentations écrites des parties à l'égard du calendrier, la Commission émet le calendrier amendé suivant :

Réponses aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 31 mai 2013

Requêtes concernant les réponses incomplètes ou insatisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 14 juin 2013

Dépôt auprès de la Commission des réponses aux requêtes : au plus tard le vendredi 21 juin 2013

[Ordonnance de la Commission]

Réponses complètes/satisfaisantes aux demandes de renseignements : au plus tard le vendredi 12 juillet 2013

Dépôt de l'énoncé de cause des parties qui remettent en question le statu quo : au plus tard le vendredi 9 août 2013

Dépôt des énoncés de cause en réponse : au plus tard le mardi 17 septembre 2013

Dépôt des répliques : au plus tard le vendredi 4 octobre 2013

Début de l'audience : le mardi 8 octobre 2013 à 10h00, à la salle d'audience de la Commission.


NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Further to the parties' submissions with regards to the schedule, the Board issues the following amended schedule:

Responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, May 31, 2013

Motions re: incomplete/unsatisfactory responses to interrogatories: no later than Friday, June 14, 2013

Filing, with the Board, of replies to motions: no later than Friday, June 21, 2013

[Board Ruling]

Complete/satisfactory responses to interrogatories: No later than Friday, July 12, 2013

Filing of Statements of Case by those challenging the status quo: no later than Friday, August 9, 2013

Filing of responding Statements of Case: no later than Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Filing of reply Statements of Case: no later than Friday, October 4, 2013

Beginning of hearing: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Copyright Board's hearing room.


 

7 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

On April 25, 2013, AVLA/SOPROQ asked that the Board clarify its April 19, 2013 Ruling as it relates to Interrogatories 35, 36 and 37 addressed by CAB to the collectives. Specifically, AVLA/SOPROQ note that while the questions are addressed to them, the "subsequent recording issue" relates to CSI, not AVLA/SOPROQ. It is unclear to AVLA/SOPROQ how these interrogatories relate to the "subsequent recording issue", whether or how AVLA/SOPROQ should respond to these interrogatories, or whether responses would still be required if CSI were to elect not to pursue the "subsequent recordings issue" before the Board.

On April 30, CAB asked that the Board dispense with the "subsequent recording" or "pending list" issue by declaring it to be irrelevant to this proceeding. The Board is willing to do so. The Board is aware, for example, that the importance of the pending list issue may be rapidly decreasing. However, since the Board knows of the issue, it was not up to the Board to ignore it unless the parties agree that the matter can be left aside for the purposes of these proceedings. Thus, what CAB is asking for requires the consent of CSI.

Absent CSI's consent, however, the Board is of the view that anyone who is a party to these proceedings and who "owns" relevant information on the issues just mentioned ought to supply it in response to an interrogatory, whether or not that party is directly concerned by the issue.

There remains the issue of the extent to which AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI should respond to Q35, 36 and 37 if the subsequent recording issue remains live.

CAB offered to withdraw Q35 and 36 and proposed that the issue, if live, be addressed through oral testimony. This would be satisfactory to the Board.

With respect to Q37, the explanation CAB provided establishes the relevance of the information. CSI and AVLA/SOPROQ shall cooperate in providing CAB a satisfactory response.

CAB points to the fact that some of the Board's rulings on the objections to interrogatories may have been made on the basis of the Board's understanding of certain practices that the Board has not made part of the record. The Board must indeed, from time to time, use its own expertise and understanding of the relevant markets to decide if, and to what extent, information sought may be relevant. Of necessity, some decisions at this early stage of the process must be made without the benefit of evidence. In the same way, and as counsel know, the Board generally takes statements made by parties as to the availability or not of information at their face value. Anything else would require on the part of the Board and the parties the expenditure of time and resources that the Board does not have and that the parties may prefer to use otherwise.


 

2 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

Parties are to provide comments on the attached request and proposed schedule from CAB by no later than Monday, May 6, 2013. CAB can reply by no later than Wednesday, May 8, 2013.

Attachments : 1) Commercial Radio 2013 schedule of proceedings (CAB Proposal May 2013).pdf 2) CAB Letter - Request for Extension of time to respond to Interrogatories - May 1, 2013.pdf


 

2 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CAB may respond to the attached AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI request by no later than Wednesday, May 8, 2013. AVLA/SOPROQ and CSI may reply no later than Tuesday, May 14, 2012.

Attachment : 13-05-01 Letter to Gilles McDougall Re Survey - Commercial Radio.pdf


 

1 mai 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CAB is asked to file no later than Thursday, May 2, 2013, a proposed revised schedule of proceedings consistent with its request for an extension of time to file responses to interrogatories, and that would lead to the same, October 8, 2013 hearing date.


 

25 avril 2013flèche par en haut

NOTICE OF THE BOARD

CAB is asked to respond to the attached application no later than Tuesday, April 30, 2013. If possible, the Board would appreciate receiving further information from CAB as to precisely which uses CAB may put the information if supplied.