Extended Collective Licensing as Rights Clearance Mechanism for Online Music Streaming Services in Canada

According to the statistics compiled by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), online paid streaming is currently the fastest growing segment of the recorded music market, with a 33% global revenue increase in 2018. Subscription-based services offering legal online paid streaming of music have now reached all corners of the planet. Among the most well-known services are Apple Music, Amazon Prime, Deezer, Google Play, Soundcloud, and Spotify. The creation and continued functioning of such services are contingent on the capacity of the service exploiters to clear all copyrights in the offered music repertoire, for the territory of operation. In practice, rights clearance for online streaming services proves incredibly complex and cumbersome, because every musical work available for streaming on a service is likely to have several right holders: an author, a performer, a record producer, and a music publisher. The number of rights owners entitled to claim rights on a musical work may even be much larger where that musical work was composed by multiple authors or performed by a group of artists, each potentially bound by separate agreements with publishers and record producers. For streaming services wishing to offer a global repertoire, it can be a daunting task to obtain permission for every single musical work, with respect to every territory. In view of the complexity of the music industry, fears of copyright infringement claims are not surprising. --- The article is further divided into four parts. Section 2 describes the legal framework underlying the online music streaming services in the European Union, the United States, and Canada, where we examine the current licensing practices for online streaming services in the same three jurisdictions. Section 3 describes what are ECLs, first giving an overview of the main characteristics of the ECL model and second, discussing how certain countries have implemented ECLs in practice. Section 4 discusses the challenges posed to Canadian CMOs in meeting the requirements of a legitimate ECL model. The most salient challenge concerns the requirement of representativeness of an ECL granting CMO, but section 4 also examines the safeguards that must be implemented to protect the interests of non-members, the role that the Copyright Board of Canada could be asked to play in the implementation of an ECL regime, and the compliance of ECLs with international obligations in the area of copyright law. Section 5 draws conclusions on the feasibility of using an ECL model for the licensing of online streaming of musical works

Owning the Right to Open Up Access to Scientific Publications

Whether the researchers themselves, rather than the institution they work for, are at all in a position to implement OA principles actually depends on the initial allocation of rights on their works. Whereas most European Union Member States have legislation that provides that the copyright owner is the natural person who created the work, the copyright laws of a number European countries, including those of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, establish a presumption, according to which the copyright of works made in the course of employment belongs initially to the employer, which in this case would be the university. In France, a similar presumption applies to works created by employees of the State. Even if researchers are in a position to exercise the rights on their works, they may, nevertheless, be required to transfer these to a publisher in order to get their article or book published. This paper, therefore, analyses the legal position of researchers, research institutions and publishers respectively, and considers what the consequences are for the promotion of OA publishing in light of the principles laid down in the Berlin Declaration and the use of Creative Commons licenses

Regime for Use of Out-of-Commerce Works

A presentation of the new provisions in European Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market on the licensing and use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions

Les moyens alternatifs de résolution de conflits en matière civile et commerciale dans une perspective de réforme du Code de procédure civile

Dans un contexte social où l'accessibilité à la justice est de plus en plus remise en question, les solutions alternatives aux litiges dans les affaires civiles et commerciales sont proposées comme approches pour remédier aux problèmes. Les résultats obtenus dans de nombreux dossiers et l'expérience favorable vécue par de nombreuses entreprises, tant aux États-Unis qu'au Canada, sont des plus encourageants. À la lumière de ces expériences et consciente du coût et des délais supportés par tout justiciable qui soumet son différend à la Cour supérieure, cette dernière, de concert avec le Barreau du Québec et le ministère de la Justice, a conduit un projet pilote dans le district de Montréal de janvier 1995 à mai 1998. C'est ainsi qu'une offre de médiation a été transmise aux avocats représentant les parties dans une série de causes de longue durée (trois jours et plus) en matière civile et commerciale. L'intérêt, les résultats favorables et la satisfaction exprimée par la grande majorité des justiciables qui ont accepté de participer au projet ont incité les membres d'un comité tripartite, magistrature, Barreau et ministère de la Justice, à recommander au ministre la mise en place d'un programme permanent pour l'ensemble du Québec. Plusieurs conditions se doivent cependant d'être respectées pour qu'un tel processus produise les résultats escomptés et les solutions alternatives ne doivent pas être considérées comme une panacée des nombreux problèmes rencontrés par les justiciables qui ont recours aux tribunaux.In a social context where access to justice has been increasingly questioned, alternate solutions to litigation in civil and commercial matters have been advanced as means for remedying problems. Results obtained in many cases and the favourable outcome experienced by a large number of businesses both in Canada and the United States are quite encouraging. In light of these experiences and with an awareness of the costs and time invested by citizens who submit their disputes to the Superior Court, the court, in conjunction with the Québec Bar Association and the Justice Department, has conducted a pilot project in the Montréal District that extended from January 1995 to May 1998. In following the project, an offer to mediate was issued to attorneys representing parties in a series of drawn-out civil and commercial cases (3 days or more). The interest, favourable outcome and satisfaction expressed by most parties who accepted to participate in the project have incited members of a tripartite committee made up of members of the Judiciary, the Bar Association and the Justice Department, to recommend to the Minister the establishment of a permanent program for all of Québec. Several conditions must, however, be complied with if the process is to produce the desired results. Furthermore, alternate solutions must not be considered a panacea for the many problems encountered by litigants who address the courts

Intellectual Property and Culture

This paper takes a critical look at the interaction between intellectual property law and culture using three examples, namely: 1) the need to preserve and disseminate culture, through the recognition of cultural heritage institutions\u27 vital role in society; 2) the need to maintain culture from depreciation, through the safeguard of a strong public domain; and 3) the need to let culture evolve, through the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE\u27s). This brief study shows that, although IP rights can be said to afford useful protection to objects of culture – taken in the narrow sense of ‘culture’, they can also prove to be inappropriate for preserving and promoting culture or cultural diversity – taken the broader sense of the word, either because they are too rigid, last too long, or are ill-suited for the intended object of protection. As a result, a serious mismatch occurs between the private appropriation of objects of culture through IP rights and the full implementation of public policy objectives towards the protection and promotion of culture and cultural diversity