Songwriters are entitled to just one royalty 91Ƶ not two 91Ƶ when their music is streamed or downloaded through an online service, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
The top court91Ƶs decision Friday clarifies the meaning of a Canadian copyright law provision dealing with communication of a work to the public online.
Canada ushered in the provision after signing on to an international treaty that obliged member countries to protect on-demand transmissions and give authors the right to control when and how their work is made available for downloading or streaming.
The Copyright Board of Canada ruled the legislative provision meant that making a song or other artistic work available was a separately protected activity for which there must be compensation.
The board said this entitled rights holders to two payments when a work is distributed online: one when it is made available on a platform such as iTunes or Spotify, and a second when it is actually streamed or downloaded by a listener.
The Federal Court of Appeal tossed out the board91Ƶs decision.
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada and Music Canada, which represents major record labels, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal91Ƶs decision and adopt the board91Ƶs interpretation.
Parties including Apple Canada and major telecommunications companies said the court should reject this position on the grounds copyright law does not require payment of two royalties each time a work is streamed or downloaded.
In writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Malcolm Rowe said the Copyright Act does not exist solely for the benefit of authors.
91ƵIts overarching purpose is to balance authors91Ƶ and users91Ƶ rights by securing just rewards for authors while facilitating public access to works,91Ƶ Rowe wrote.
91ƵWhen this balance is achieved, society is enriched. Authors are encouraged to produce more works, and users gain access to works which they can use to inspire their own original artistic and intellectual creations.91Ƶ
The court said the board91Ƶs interpretation undermined the purpose of copyright law, violating the principle of 91Ƶtechnological neutrality91Ƶ by requiring users to pay additional royalties to access works online.
91ƵThis principle holds that, absent parliamentary intent to the contrary, the Copyright Act should not be interpreted so as to favour or discriminate against any form of technology,91Ƶ Rowe said.
91ƵIt protects authors and users by ensuring that works attract the same rights and give rise to the same royalties regardless of the technological means used to distribute the works.91Ƶ
The Copyright Act provides authors with rights related to the reproduction and performance of their works.
91ƵSimilar to off-line distributions, downloading or streaming works will continue to engage only one copyright interest and require paying one royalty 91Ƶ a reproduction royalty for downloads or a performance royalty for streams,91Ƶ Rowe wrote.
Under the law, a work is 91Ƶperformed91Ƶ as soon as it is made available for on-demand streaming, he added. At that point, a royalty is payable. If the work is later streamed by a user, no additional royalty is payable because the stream is part of a continuous act of performance that began when the work was made available.
The value of these rights was not at issue in the appeal, Rowe noted. Therefore, setting the appropriate royalties when these rights come into play is a matter for the board to decide.
91Ƶ Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press