Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Copyright Law Blogs -> Michael Geist
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Copyright Law
: Michael Geist61 Reforms to C-61, Day 45: Making Available Right and Actual Distribution
By Michael Geist
ADVERTISEMENTS
Bill C-61 unsurprisingly includes a new "making available" provision that grants performers and sound recording makers the exclusive right to make their works available. Two provisions establish the making available right in the bill (similar rights are already granted to authors and composers). Section 15 (1.1)(d) provides that a performer's copyright in the performer's performance also consists of the sole right to do the following acts in relation to the performer's performance or any substantial part of it and to authorize any of those acts
(d) to communicate to the public by telecommunication a sound recording of it in a way that allows a member of the public to access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public
Section 18 (1.1) provides that
a sound recording maker’s copyright in the sound recording also includes the sole right to do the following acts in relation to the sound recording or any substantial part of it and to authorize any of those acts:
(a) to communicate it to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public
The concern associated with these new rights stems from their possible overbreadth in file sharing litigation. In particular, does communicating require actual communication or is placing a file in a shared folder enough? In other words, does there need to be evidence of actual downloading (and thereby actual harm)? In the U.S., there have been a growing number of cases where courts have considered the need for some evidence of actual distribution (Atlantic v. Howell, Thomas). Bill C-61 fails to clarify this issue and should be amended to require evidence of actual distribution.
Full post as published by Michael Geist on August 22, 2008 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
PETCO
Animal Food Distribution Unsanitary, Food Seized
False Claims
Attorney Robert Arledge ordered to pay $5.8 million after making false Fen Phen settlement claims.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

File Sharing Lawsuits - Could they be over
File-Sharing Lawsuits - Could They Be Over
Observations on Professor Patry’s making available observations
Court Helps Record Labels Define KaZaA's 'Shared Folder' in Lawsuit
The Atlantic v. Brennan Decision Rejecting "Making Available", as PDF and Text
Judge in First File-Sharing Trial: 'Oops, Maybe You Do Need Actual Distribution'







