CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age              1McCarthy Tétrault Advance™Building Ca...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   2     Why Is Jurisdiction Important?•   The Inter...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   3 Berne Convention, Art. 5(2)“The enjoyment and t...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   4 There Is No Consensus on What Art. 5(2) Means!“...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   5   Tariff 22 (Supreme Court of Canada, 2004)• Co...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   6     Sirius Canada v. CSI, 2010 FCA 348• Sirius ...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   7  Sirius Canada v. CSI, 2010 FCA 348• Federal Co...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   8     SAIF v. Google (Paris Court of Appeal, Jan....
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   9     Google Inc v Copiepresse et al     (Belgian...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age   10    Columbia v. Fung (Central Dist. Cal.)“Unite...
CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age      11    ALI Principles Governing Jurisdiction,  ...
VANCOUVER                             MONTRÉALSuite 1300, 777 Dunsmuir Street       Suite 2500P.O. Box 10424, Pacific Cent...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Glover ccil internet_jurisdiction_slides.ppt

3,093 views

Published on

Dan Glover slides, CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,093
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,010
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Glover ccil internet_jurisdiction_slides.ppt

  1. 1. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 1McCarthy Tétrault Advance™Building Capabilities for GrowthCCIL Panel on Intellectual Property –Jurisdiction in the Internet AgeDaniel G.C. Glover, McCarthy Tétrault LLP McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca / November 2011 10872017
  2. 2. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 2 Why Is Jurisdiction Important?• The Internet makes cross-border events routine• Different standards apply in different countries• Relevant to ©, ™, privacy and defamation• Forum conflicts increasingly prevalent • Perfect 10 pursuing Google in the United States and Canada, potentially with different results • Supreme Court has recognized “the spectre of overlapping liability” but suggests “the answer lies in the making of international or bilateral agreements” • These agreements exist between collective societies, but not on a country-to-country level McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  3. 3. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 3 Berne Convention, Art. 5(2)“The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shallnot be subject to any formality; such enjoyment andsuch exercise shall be independent of the existence ofprotection in the country of origin of the work.Consequently, apart from the provisions of thisConvention, the extent of protection, as well as themeans of redress afforded to the author to protect hisrights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws ofthe country where protection is claimed.” Is this a principle of non-discrimination? Is it a choice of law rule? McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  4. 4. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 4 There Is No Consensus on What Art. 5(2) Means!“The national treatment obligation of the Berne Convention …suggests that some notion of „place‟ … should be controlling.But… it is not clear which „place‟ is the most relevant.” - Graeme B. Dinwoodie“Article 5(2) might direct the application of the forum‟s conflict law(or even its substantive law), but it does not tell us the basis onwhich the forum became the forum. … At most, then, article 5(1)and (2) anticipate that the law of the territories on which allegedinfringements occur will determine most questions regarding theexistence of protection, its scope, and the available remedies.” - Sam Ricketson & Jane C. Ginsburg“[Article 5(2)] is, in a way, a confirmation of the independence ofprotection, and underlines that there is no need to refer to the lawof the country of origin in these respects.” - WIPO Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  5. 5. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 5 Tariff 22 (Supreme Court of Canada, 2004)• Copyright law respects the territorial principle, reflecting the implementation of a “web of interlinking international treaties” based on the principle of national treatment• The applicability of our Copyright Act to communications that have international participants will depend on whether there is a sufficient connection between this country and the communication in question for Canada to apply its law consistent with the “principles of order and fairness ... that ensure security of [cross-border] transactions with justice”• A telecommunication from a foreign state to Canada, or a telecommunication from Canada to a foreign state, “is both here and there”. Receipt may be no less “significant” a connecting factor than the point of origin (not to mention the physical location of the host server, which may be in a third country). McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  6. 6. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 6 Sirius Canada v. CSI, 2010 FCA 348• Sirius Canada offers satellite radio services• CSI is a collective society administering the right to reproduce• To deliver the service to Canadians, Sirius contracts with studios in the USA• The studios make copies that are used to beam a signal to a satellite for reception across North America• Sirius Canada did not contest liability respecting broadcasts received in Canada• Did Sirius Canada infringe the Canadian Act by authorizing U.S. reproductions? McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  7. 7. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 7 Sirius Canada v. CSI, 2010 FCA 348• Federal Court of Appeal rejects argument that the “real andsubstantial connection” test applies to reproductions.• While CSI argued that rightsholders would suffer becauseof lack of coverage, the FCA found it was wrong to “assumethat the making of the copy in these circumstances cannot besubject to the copyright laws of the United States.”• Tariff 22 case distinguished because it required adetermination of the location of a communication initiated inone country and received in another. The principle does notapply where the completed copy exists only in one location.• Although the alleged acts of authorizing occurredin Canada, they are not actionable under the CopyrightAct where the primary infringement occurs outside Canada. McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  8. 8. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 8 SAIF v. Google (Paris Court of Appeal, Jan. 2011)• Google indexed, cached and made visual works available• Indexing and caching take place in U.S., which is also theplace of the transmission• Google relied on U.S. law to assert fair use defences• Court of First Instance interprets Art. 5(2) to requireapplication of the law of the place where the alleged harm wasproduced• Court of Appeal reverses, requiring application of the law ofthe place where the alleged harm was sustained• Decision on choice of law does not impact result, as Google isfound to qualify as a neutral intermediary under French law McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  9. 9. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 9 Google Inc v Copiepresse et al (Belgian Court of Appeal, 9th Chamber, May 2011)• Google claimed that U.S. law applied because it cachedarticles in the U.S. and transmitted article titles and extracts toBelgian readers from the U.S.• Google relies on U.S. law to assert fair use and avoid moralrights claims• Authors and publishers claimed that Belgian copyright lawapplied because Belgium had the closest connection to the actsof infringement• Court of Appeal finds that all acts are subject to Belgiancopyright law on test of closest connection• Google found to have infringed copyright and moral rights  Should the Court have distinguished between reproductions and communications to the public? McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  10. 10. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 10 Columbia v. Fung (Central Dist. Cal.)“United States copyright law does not require that both partiesbe located in the United States. Rather, the acts of uploadingand downloading are each independent grounds of copyrightinfringement liability. Uploading a copyrighted content file toother users (regardless of where those users are located)violates the copyright holder‟s §106(3) distribution right.Downloading a copyrighted content file from other users(regardless of where those users are located) violates thecopyright holder‟s §106(1) reproduction right… Accordingly,Plaintiffs need only show that United States users eitheruploaded or downloaded copyrighted works; Plaintiffs need notshow that a particular file was both uploaded and downloadedentirely within the United States.” - Decision on Permanent Injunction, May 10, 2010 McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  11. 11. CCIL Panel on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in the Internet Age 11 ALI Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Judgments“These Principles endeavour to refine the connecting factors derived fromthe Berne Convention and its article 5.2.… Earlier drafts… envisioned acommercial environment in which the importance of national borderswould progressively wane. Given that impending future, the Principlesoffered an opportunity to devise forward-looking rules… Whilemultinational distribution implicates many countries, to view the dispute asa collection of local litigation sticks in a worldwide bundle is to overlook thereal scale of the enterprise.“Nonetheless, territoriality remains a powerful intuition. It is difficult toaccept the proposition that an act unlawful in one territory should give riseto liability in another, where that same act is permissible, even where thatterritory is part of a global market.… These Principles thus retain the basicrule of territoriality, but allow the parties to simplify the choice of applicablelaws by agreement, and when an infringement is instantaneous andworldwide.” • Applied in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 • Considered in Columbia Pictures v. Wang, 2006 SKCA 97 McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca
  12. 12. VANCOUVER MONTRÉALSuite 1300, 777 Dunsmuir Street Suite 2500P.O. Box 10424, Pacific Centre 1000 De La Gauchetière Street WestVancouver BC V7Y 1K2 Montréal QC H3B 0A2Tel: 604-643-7100 Tel: 514-397-4100Fax: 604-643-7900 Fax: 514-875-6246Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711 Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711CALGARY QUÉBECSuite 3300, 421 7th Avenue SW Le Complexe St-AmableCalgary AB T2P 4K9 1150, rue de Claire-Fontaine, 7e étageTel: 403-260-3500 Québec QC G1R 5G4Fax: 403-260-3501 Tel: 418-521-3000Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711 Fax: 418-521-3099 Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711TORONTOBox 48, Suite 5300 UNITED KINGDOM & EUROPEToronto Dominion Bank Tower 125 Old Broad Street, 26th FloorToronto ON M5K 1E6 London EC2N 1ARTel: 416-362-1812 UNITED KINGDOMFax: 416-868-0673 Tel: +44 (0)20 7489 5700Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711 Fax: +44 (0)20 7489 5777OTTAWASuite 200, 440 Laurier Avenue WestOttawa ON K1R 7X6Tel: 613-238-2000Fax: 613-563-9386Toll-Free: 1-877-244-7711McCarthy Tétrault LLP / mccarthy.ca

×