de beer para copyrights

8/2/2019 De Beer Para Copyrights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/de-beer-para-copyrights 1/38

Part two:

Bill C-60: A Clse Analysis



89

four

Cnsiuinl Juisdicin ove

Pcpyigh Ls

Jeemy F. deBee*

A. IntroductIon

In resnse t evlvin scial, tecnlical, ecnmic, and cultural envi-

rnments, te Gvernment Canada as been enaed in a decades-lnveraul crit la. In te rerm rcess, te need t balance terits and interests all stakelders is bvius. Sme asects c-rit rerm, ever, are less bvius. As crit exands incremen-tall e risk mvin aa rm cre ranizin rinciles tat underinte sstem. Nt nl is tis unise rm a lic ersective, it is quitessibl uncnstitutinal.

Te urse tis aer is t determine eter Parliament is cnstitu-

tinall cmetent t enact ne las in resect tecnlical rtectinmeasures (PMs) and/r rits manaement inrmatin (RMI) sstems rdiital materials. In tis cntext, diital materials include mainl cul-ture rducts suc as music, mvies, bks, ames, and stare, eterin electrnic rm r encded n CDs, DVDs, r ter tanible media. Lasrtectin te tecnlical and inrmatinal tls tat rtect tesediital materials are smetimes called “aracrit” rvisins because

* Te Autr ises t tank te Universit Ottaa and te Facult Lar undin tis researc tru an Initiatin Researc-Ne Directin Re-searc Grant, and Dane Gilbert, Steart Elie, Ian Kerr, Jane Baile, JennierCandler, Micael Geist, Gu Réimbald, and an annmus eer r teir



IN hE PUBLIC INERES: hE FUURE OF CANADIAN COPyRIGh LAw90

te intrduce a ne laer leal rtectin, abve tse alread ardedb traditinal crits and tecnlical measures temselves.

Te Constitution Act, 1867 ives Parliament te autrit t leislate,amn ter tins, in resect “Crits.” Until n, it seems t

ave been taken r ranted tat te ederal Gvernment can and illinclude aracrit rvisins in amendments t te Copyright Act

tru Bill C-60, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, and d s ursu-ant t its jurisdictin under te Crits clause. But te Cnstitutinals emers te Prvinces t make las in resect Prert andCivil Rits. Altu aracrit rvisins are in a a cnnectedt crits, te simultaneusl imlicate issues ticall reserved rrvincial leislatrs, suc as cntractual bliatins, cnsumer rtec-

tin, e-cmmerce, and te reulatin classic rert.It is temtin t suest tat te eas slutin t te cnstitutinal

dilemma is t ribit circumventin and/r tamerin nl r te ur-se inrinin crits. Since tis is just at te Gvernment in-tends t d, ne mit arue tat tere is n real cnstitutinal issue ere.Tat, ever, uld underestimate te nature te rblem. Te keissue is nt eter te rvisins reect te sce te Copyright Act

in its resent rm, but eter te are in it and substance a mat-

elul cmments n m ideas, and Sctt Luck and Barr Steinman r teirutstandin assistance it tis aer.

See r examle David Nimmer, “Puzzles te Diital Millennium Crit Act” (998-999) 6 J. Cr Sc’ U.S.A. 0 at 0; Micael J. Remintn,“Te Ever-wirlin Ccle Cane: Crit and Cbersace” (00) : N. C.

J. L. & ec. at 8–; Dan L. Burk, “Anti-Circumventin Misuse,” (00)0 UCLA L. Rev. 09; Kimberlee weaterall, “On ecnl Lcks and tePrer Sce Diital Crit Las — Sn in te hi Curt” (00) 6:Sdne L. Rev. 6 at 6. Peter Jaszi as als used te terms “seudcrit”and “metacrit” t describe similarl ne rits: see Peter Jaszi, “Is Tiste End Crit as we Kn It?” Address t Nrdin Cnerence, 9–0Octber 997, in Stcklm, Seden; Nrdiskt Frum ör bibliteksceer8–67 (NORDINFO 998).

Constitution Act, 1867, <tt://las.justice.c.ca/en/cnst/c867_e.tml#distributin>, s. 9().

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 98, c. C-, <tt://las.justice.c.ca/en/C-/index.tml>.

First Readin, 0 June 00, <.arl.c.ca/8//arlbus/cambus/use/bills/vernment/C-60/C-60_/C-60_cver-E.tml>.

Constitution Act, 1867, abve nte , s. 9().



Chapter Four • Constitutional Jurisdiction Over Paracopyright Laws 91

ter “Crits” under te Constitution Act, 1867.6 Te rvisins’ strictleal eratin is nl ne several cnsideratins; teir true urseand ractical eects are als determinative cnstitutinal validit. Init and substance, te true caracter te rsed rvisins is actu-

all ver dierent rm traditinal crit leislatin. Mrever, it isunise t cus slel n Parliament’s abilit t leislate n tis matter. Attentin must be aid t te rvinces’ rle in te crit rerm r-cess, ic tus ar as been larel verlked.

Terere, tis aer rst caracterizes te it and substance terelevant rvisins b examinin teir urse and leal and ractical e-ects. It ten cnsiders eter te all itin te sce Parliament’sautrit under te Crits clause, r are mre accuratel rearded as a

matter Prert and Civil Rits. It als queries eter aracritrvisins all under ter eads er, suc as rade and Cmmerce,Criminal La, r te Peace, Order, and Gd Gvernment Canada.

Te analsis leads t tree main cnclusins. First, rvisins tat at-temt t trace te sce existin crit rules are nt invulnerable.Fr reasns discussed in tis aer, te mere inclusin te rase “rinrinin urses” ma nt be sucient r cnstitutinal urses. Asis, te rsed leislatin ma cree t ar int te rvincial dmaint be salvaed as ancillar t an verall valid crit sceme. It is aru-able tat tis is a clurable attemt t exand te bundaries C-rits urter int Prert and Civil Rits.

Te secnd teme in tis aer is tat i te ederal vernment is cn-stitutinall cmetent t enact leislatin n te subject PMs andRMI, it must exercise restraint in din s. Te Cnstitutin at least re-quires te Gvernment t resist ressure t iden te rsed rvi-sins. Similarl, curts must be cautius en interretin Bill C-60 i and en it becmes la. Te brader te rvisins, te urter testra rm ederal jurisdictin, te mre te trenc int rvincial -ers, and te mre susect te becme.

In an event, te Gvernment’s intentin t ress rard it BillC-60 des nt necessaril reclude te rvinces rm enactin leisla-

6 I am nt suestin ere tat an r all te existin Copyright Act is cnsti-

tutinall invalid, but its status ut nt be taken r ranted. Tere is little judicial autrit n int. See David Vaver, Copyright Law (rnt: Irin La,000) at 9–; and Jerem F. deBeer, “Crits, Federalism and te Cnsti-tutinalit Canada’s Private Cin Lev” <tt://aers.ssrn.cm/sl/aers.cm?abstract_id=79>.




tin t deal it certain asects PMs and RMI. Te tird cnclusin,terere, is tat Prvincial Attrne Generals suld at least cntributet tis discussin. Din s ill acilitate demcratic invlvement in tela rerm rcess and maximize rtunities r eective citizen ar-

ticiatin. Tese are amn te remst als nt nl crit la,but als te entire Canadian ederal sstem.

B. thepIth&suBstAnceothIsMAtter

determine eter leislatin is validl enacted accrdin t te cn-stitutinal divisin ers, ne must caracterize its “leadin eature,”its “true caracter,” its “it and substance.”7 Fllin caracterizatin

te matter, te leislatin can be classied as relatin rimaril t ner anter ead er. Ntabl, te cateries in sectin 9 and 9are n lner vieed as “atertit cmartments.”8 Desite te mutualmdicatin9 Canada’s cnstitutinal classes t reduce cnicts, tereare still verlas in resect cmlex lic issues.

Te duble asect dctrine,0 r examle, suests tere are sme mat-ters invlvin asects bt rvincial and ederal autrit. Te neces-saril incidental dctrine suests tat articular rvisins tetered t

valid leislatin ma stand, desite trencin int te ter leislatr’sdmain. But a articular rvisin is nt cnstitutinall valid merel be-cause it is included in a valid leislative sceme; te rvisin must besucientl interated it tat sceme. Altu e ill encunter am-biuities as t te rer cnstitutinal arac at a later stae in teanalsis, it is certainl crrect t bein b lkin at te urse and lealand ractical eects te Bill C-60.

7 R. v. Morgentaler, [99] S.C.R. 6 at 8, <.lexum.umntreal.ca/csc-scc/en/ub/99/vl/tml/99scr_06.tml>.

8 Canada (A.G.) v. Ontario (A.G.), [97] A.C. 6 at ara. .9 See R.M. Dasn, Te Government o Canada, t ed., N. ward, ed. (rnt:

Universit rnt Press, 970) at 86.0 See Reerence Re: Liquor License Act o 1877 (Ont.), (Hodge v R.), [88] J.C.J. N. ,

[88] 9 A. Cas. 7 (P.C.). General Motors o Canada v. City National Leasing , [989] S.C.R. 6, <.

lexum.umntreal.ca/csc-scc/en/ub/989/vl/tml/989scr_06.tml>[General Motors].

Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister o Small Business, ourism and Culture),[00] S.C.R. 6, <.lexum.umntreal.ca/csc-scc/ci-bin/dis.l/en/ub/00/vl/tml/00scr_06.tm> at ara. .




1) p

Suerciall, te urse te rsed leislatin is t incrratete wIPO Internet reaties int Canadian dmestic la. Accrdin t te

Gvernment’s resnse t requentl asked questins, “Te bill ill im-lement all te rits and rtectins rvided r in te wIPO Internetreaties.” Tis ma require a brie exlanatin.

Prvisins addressin te circumventin PMs and tamerin itRMI ad teir enesis in te wrld Intellectual Prert Oranizatin(wIPO) Copyright reaty (WC ) and te wIPO Perormances and Phono-

grams reaty (WPP ). Tese are cllectivel knn as te “ wIPO Internetreaties.” Article te WC requires tat:

Cntractin Parties sall rvide adequate leal rtectin and eec-

tive leal remedies aainst te circumventin eective tecnli-

cal measures tat are used b autrs in cnnectin it te exercise

teir rits under tis reat r te Berne Cnventin and tat

restrict acts, in resect teir rks, ic are nt autrized b

te autrs cncerned r ermitted b la.6

Diin slitl deeer, te urse te wIPO Internet reaties, as

stated in teir reambles, is:t devel and maintain te rtectin te rits autrs [and

errmers and rducers nrams] in teir literar and artis-

tic rks [and errmances and sund recrdins] in a manner as

eective and unirm as ssible.7

Te WC and te WPP , ever, ive natinal leislatrs — eter ed-eral r rvincial — sinicant leea t ull tis urse.8 Tere is

Frequently Asked Questions Amendments to the Copyright Act, (Ottaa: Ministr Industr and heritae Canada, 00), <tt://strateis.ic.c.ca/eic/internet/incr-rda.ns/en/r06e.tml >.

World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright reaty, 0 December 996, 6I.L.M. 6, <.i.int/clea/dcs_ne/en//0en.tml>.

World Intellectual Property Organization Perormances and Phonograph reaty, 0December 996, 6 I.L.M. 76, <.i.int/clea/dcs/en//0en.tm>.

6 Art. 8 te WPP , ibid., uses similar lanuae in resect te rits er-

rmers and recrd rducers.7 Abve ntes –.8 Mark S. haes, “Memrandum Cncernin te Imlementatin in Canada

Articles and 8 te wIPO Internet reaties Reardin te UnautrizedCircumventin ecnlical Measures Used in Cnnectin it te Exercise




n bliatin t imlement “adequate leal rtectin and eective lealremedies” into copyright law. Exerts acknlede tat cuntries culd in-deed decide t imlement te wIPO Internet reaties in elds la tertan in crit.9

Fr examle, b imlementin asects te wIPO Internet reatiesint its cmetitin la, nt nl int its crit la, Jaan as aar-entl recnized teir sinicant urses and eects utside c-rit la.0 Indeed, adequate leal rtectin can be rvided trudiverse areas la, includin telecmmunicatins reulatin, cmeti-tin, criminal la, trt, and cntract. Circumventin culd ssibl bea breac cntract, a cber-tresass, an unair trade ractice r sme

a Crit Rit” (Ottaa: Oilv Renault, 000), nline: Industr Canada<tt://strateis.ic.c.ca/eic/internet/inid-di.ns/en/i0e.tml>.

9 Séverine Dusllier, “Situatin leal rtectins r crit-related tecn-lical measures in te brader leal landscae: Anti Circumventin PrtectinOutside Crit” (General Rert resented t ALAI Cnress, June 00),<.alai-usa.r/00_cnerence/_rram_en.tm> at . See als rexamle Ian R. Kerr, Alana Maurusat, & Cristian S. acit, “ecnical Prtec-tin Measures: iltin at Crit’s windmill” (00-00) Ottaa L. Rev.

7 at 6–7; and Jacques de werra, “Te Leal Sstem ecnlical PrtectinMeasures under te wIPO Internet reaties, te Diital Millennium Crit Act, te Eurean Unin Directives and ter Natinal Las (Jaan, Austra-lia)” General Report presented to ALAI Congress (June 00), <.alai-usa.r/00_cnerence/_rram_en.tm> at –.

0 Copyright Law o Japan, Art, 0bis, <.cric.r.j/cric_e/clj/clj.tml>; andJapanese Anti-Unair Competition Law, La N. 7, rmulated n 9 Ma 99as amended b La N. , Aril 999 and La N. 60, December 999.See enerall Jaan, Crit Udate Jaan 999, On the Law to Partially

Amend the Copyright Law (Part 1) echnological advances and new steps in copyright

protection b aka Ksida, (Jaan: Oce Multimedia Crit, CritDivisin, Aenc r Cultural Aairs), <.cric.r.j/cric_e/cuj/cuj99/cuj99_.tml> [Japan Update].

Dusllier, abve nte 9. See r examle Compuserve v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 96 F.Su. 0 (S.D.

Oi 997); eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 00 F. Su. d 08 (N.D. Cal., 000);Register.Com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 6 F. Su. d. 8 (S.D.N.y., 000); Intel Corpora-

tion v. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi et al., 9 Cal. A. t , Cal.Rtr.d (00). See urter Ricard A. Estein, “Cbertresass” (00) 70 U. Ci. L. Rev.7; Jn D. Saba Jr., “Internet Prert Rits: E-resass” (00) St. Mar’s

L.J. 67. Tere is case la in cuntries suc as German t surt tis vie: Dusllier,

abve nte 9, citin Lemann, M. “Crit and tecnical rtectins — Ger-man rert” in Copyright in Cyberspace, Ott Craminckel ed., ALAI StudDas, June 996 (Amsterdam, 997) at 7–7; and A Raubeneimer, “Increasin




ter trt, r even a cmuter crime. Te int ere is tat it ut ntbe assumed tat te wIPO Internet reaties’ rvisins naturall dvetailit crit.

In Ma 00, te Standin Cmmittee n Canadian heritae recm-

mended immediate raticatin te WC and WPP .6 accmlistis, te Gvernment intrduced Bill C-60. It ill be discussed beleter sinin te wIPO Internet reaties is itsel enu t emerte ederal vernment t enact dmestic leislatin t ull Canada’s b-liatins (te srt anser is it is unclear). Reardless, imlementatin te wIPO Internet reaties is als ne asect te Gvernment Cana-da’s desire t enable “crit stakelders t address te callenes andrtunities te Internet.”7 Unrtunatel, little as been said abut

at, recisel, is te rle tese rvisins in addressin te callenesand rtunities te Internet.

wile nrmall ne mit lk t leislative debates, seeces, r t-er hansard evidence r te urse imuned leislative rvisins,8 e d nt et ave te luxur ell-reasned Parliamentar discussinn tis tic. Te Standin Cmmittee’s Interim Rert did nt er aratinale r intrducin tese rvisins int Canadian la, excet timlement te wIPO Internet reaties.9 Te Gvernment Canada didcmmissin t tru studies b Pressr Kerr and ters, icastutel describe te nature and unctin PMs, RMI, and circumven-tin r tamerin ribitins.0 Mrever, in te decade since tese is-

imrtance ardare lcks (dnles) in recent German case la” (998) 7:Inrmatin & Cmmunicatins ec. L. .

See r examle Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 87 F.Su. 679, 99 C. L.Re. P 7,09, 0 U.S.P.Q.d 9 (NDCal 99); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA,

98 F.Su. 9, 997 C L. Re. P 7,60, U.S.P.Q.d 70 (NDCal 996). Dusllier, abve nte 9.6 Canada, Interim Report on Copyright Reorm: Report o the Standing Committee on

Canadian Heritage (Ottaa: Cmmunicatin Canada, 00), <.arl.c.ca/IncmDc/Dcuments/7//arlbus/cmmbus/use/rerts/erir0-e.tm> [ Interim Report].

7 Canada, Te Government o Canada Announces Upcoming Amendments to the Copyright

Act: Backgrounder (Ottaa: Ministries Industr and Canadian heritae, 00),<tt://strateis.ic.c.ca/eic/internet/incr-rda.ns/en/r00e.tml>.

8 Morgentaler, abve nte 7 at 8.

9 Interim Report , abve nte 6.0 See heritae Canada, “ecnical Prtectin Measures: Part I – rends in

ecnical Prtectin Measures and Circumventin ecnlies” b Ian R.Kerr, Alana Maurusat, & Cristian S. acit (Ottaa: Deartment Canadianheritae, 00), <.c.c.ca/rs/ac-ca/rs/da-cb/ubs/rtectin/




sues suraced a rbust bd literature as develed, ic ma elt uncver te varius reasns aracrit rvisins ma be enacted. Nte, ever, tat altu muc te literature addresses te isdm te lic cices invlved, te ke questin ere is nt eter te

lic cice is te crrect ne, but eter it is a cice Parliament isentitled t make.

Te Gvernment as said: “t better address te callenes and te -rtunities resented b te Internet and diital tecnl in eneral …[t]ese amendments ill: enance rtectin rks in te nline en-virnment, bt t address inrinement and t enable te develment ne business mdels ….” Frm tis, ne can iner tat aracritrvisins ave smetin t d it te enmenn sarin diital

cntent via eer-t-eer () netrks. Cntent distributrs are cn-cerned tat tis ildl ular trend is a treat t teir business mdels,and cnsequentl teir bttm line. Te rsed rvisins ill el treserve teir existin revenue streams and enerate ne nes.

One mit arue tat tese rvisins ill saeuard artists’ interestsand tus encurae te rductin and disseminatin diital materi-als t te benet sciet at lare. Altu te rvisins ill rtectcrrate distributrs, nt necessaril uman artists, a nanciall lucra-tive mass market r diital cntent mit benet rassrts artists intat reater rts r distributrs culd lead t reater rtunities r

index_e.cm>; and heritae Canada, “ecnical Prtectin Measures: Part II– Te Leal Prtectin PMs” b Ian R. Kerr, Alana Maurusat, & CristianS. acit (Ottaa: Deartment Canadian heritae, 00), <.c.c.ca/rs/ac-ca/rs/da-cb/ubs/rtectinII/index_e.cm>.

See r examle “ALAI 00 Cnress: Adjuncts and Alternatives t Crit”(ALAI-USA: Ne yrk, 00), <.alai-usa.r/00_cnerence/_rram_en.tm>; and Jere P. Cunard, Keit hill, & Cris Barlas, “Current Develmentsin te Field Diital Rits Manaement” Standing Committee on Copyright and

Related Rights, enth Session (wrld Intellectual Prert Oranizatin: Geneva00), <.i.int/dcuments/en/meetins/00/sccr/d/sccr_0_.d>.

Firearms Reerence at ara. 8. FAQ Bill C-60, abve nte . See, r examle, Te Canadian Recrdin Industr Assciatin, “erils ,”

<.cria.ca/lesarin.>.

Fr an illustratin tis enmenn in ractice, ne can lk t te Aleiunes Music Stre. It is te cman tat markets and distributes te dii-tal cntent, nt te artist rduces it, tat exlits PMs in its businessmdel. See urter Jerem F. deBeer, “Artist Cmensatin and te CanadianCrit Reime” (rnt: Unirm La Cnerence Canada, 00).




artists. Te benets, ever, are indirect at best.6 Te dminant urse tese rvisins is, terere, t rtect distributrs’ ecnmic inter-ests, nt necessaril artists’ ellbein.7 One culd sa tat tis is true man arts te current Copyright Act, and terere unbjectinable.

But it ill be exlained bel tat rtectin r artists is at te cre te Cnstitutin’s Crits clause, ereas rtectin r distributrsma be cnsidered mre erieral. Leislatin it a rimar urserelated t neiburin rits — ic temselves ave nt been settledt be cnstitutinall valid Crits — is mre vulnerable tan uldbe leislatin directl addressin te rits autrs.

Mrever, te rsed rvisins ma nt encurae te dissemina-tin diital cntent, ne te rimar als crit la ener-

all. Rater, te ill likel cncentrate cntrl ver disseminatin in teands relativel e distributrs.8 Accrdin t Pressr huenltz,terere, “te ne reime is dicult t recncile it ne te mst im-rtant ratinales te crit sstem: rmtin te disseminatin culture and knlede in sciet.”9 One culd arue, in act, tat teurse te Gvernment’s rsed rvisins is actuall inconsistent it traditinal crits.

Alternativel, te urse tese rsed rvisins mit be car-acterized as siml t deter r remed crit inrinement. Ater all,Bill C-60 ribits circumventin r services t circumvent “r te ur-se an act tat is an inrinement te crit.”0 Tis stands incntrast t ter cuntries’ imlementatin te wIPO Internet reaties,

6 And ma nt be rt te csts: see Larence Lessi, Free Culture How: Big Me-

dia Uses echnology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity , (Ne

yrk: Penuin Press, 00).7 See Japan Update, abve nte 0, erein Ksida directl addresses tis int

and cmments: “In tese amendments, measures “used nt at te ill tener crit” are nt included in tecnlical measures. Tis is becauseit is tut, r examle, tat a tecnlical measures tat is used b adistributr is nt a crit ner, n is r er n r is r er nrt itut reard t te intent te crit ner, culd nt be cnsid-ered a measure t eectivel secure crit.”

8 Indeed, a ribitin n PMs, rater tan a ribitin n circumventin,mit best rmte te bjective idesread disseminatin diital

cntent. I’m nt suestin ere tat eiter ribitin is arranted; a neutralarac tat deers t market rces mit als be arriate.

9 B. huenltz, “Crit, Cntract and Cde: wat will Remain te PublicDmain” (000-00) 6 Brk. J. Int’l L. 77 at 86.

0 Bill C-60, abve nte , s. .0().




mst ntabl te United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA], ic as been criticized r bein vaue, verbrad, and skein tela in avur cntent distributrs. Certainl, ederal leislatin idertan tat rsed in Bill C-60 uld ave a mre dicult time assin

cnstitutinal muster. B ribitin circumventin r inrinin ur-ses nl, te Gvernment as increased te likelid tat its rsedrvisins can itstand scrutin. yet it uld be misleadin t suesttat te cnstitutinal cnundrum is cmletel slved.

Te reerence t te urse inrinement ma el t alin te r-visins’ sce it te existin Copyright Act, but it sas ntin abutteir nature. S, te act tat PMs ill be rtected nl insar as cir-cumventin is r an inrinin urse ma nt be enu t cane te

“true caracter” tis leislatin r cnstitutinal urses. In deter-minin te it and substance, te curt “ill lk bend te direct lealeects ….” In ter rds, te real issue at tis stae as less t d itte sce te circumventin ribitins tan teir nature. In tis re-sect, te rsed rvisins are dramaticall dierent rm traditinalcrit las. Lic rves tis: eiter (a) te ne rvisins are entirelsueruus, ic bes te questin as t te are bein enacted atall; r (b) te are dierent rm existin crit la in urse andeect, ic raises questins as t teir validit.

raditinal crit la is ne a t cntrl te terms un icdiital cntent is distributed. Te sce crit la is determinedb demcraticall elected reresentatives and enrced b an indeendent judiciar. Te sce PMs, n te ter and, is determined nt b ub-lic cials, but b rivate cmanies ursin ecnmic aendas. rue,leal ribitins aainst circumventin PMs ill trace te sce crit la. But te decisin t enact tis additinal laer rtectinneverteless reveals a ursive sit rm ne leal reime t anter.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 7 U.S.C. § 0 (998). See r examle Pamela Samuelsn, “Intellectual Prert and te Diital

Ecnm: w te Anti-Circumventin Reulatins Need t Be Revised” Berkele ec. L.J. 0, <.la.berkele.edu/jurnals/btlj/articles/vl/Samuelsn/tml/reader.tml>; Dan L. Burk, abve nte ; Simn Fitzatrick,“Crit Imbalances: U.S. and Australian Resnses t te wIPO Diital

Crit reat” (000) E.I.P.R. ; Cunard, hill & Barlas, abve nte ;Kerr, Maurusat, & acit, abve nte 9 at 66; de werra, abve nte 9 at –.

Morgentaler, abve nte 7 at 8. Ibid. at 8–8. Kerr, Maurusat, & acit, abve nte 9 at –.




Te rsed amendments uld cntribute t te transer cntrlver te terms distributin rm crit t cntract la. Accrdint Pressr huenltz: “Cntract la, in articular, aears t ave allte makins becmin a erect alternative t te crit sstem.”6

Aln te same lines, Pressr Samuelsn as remarked: “Tere ma bentin r crit t d, excet eras t serve as a kind deus ex

machina justiin te use tecnlical and cntractual means r r-tectin rks in diital rm.”7 In articular, i and en Bill C-60 cmesint rce, it ill be unnecessar r diital cntent distributrs t invkecrits r neiburin rits at all. Te mere act circumventin ran inrinin urse culd entitle te crit ner t all remediesrvided b la. Tese aracrit rvisins are tus a relacement

r, nt a art , traditinal crit las.It is aruable tat aracrit rvisins rtect cntracts abut

crits, and are terere temselves in it and substance a matter crit, nt cntract. Anter a uttin it is tat tese r-visins relate t crit “licensin” issues, nt sinicantl dierentrm, r examle, rvisins vernin nersi crit ener-all.8 hever, in ter and in ractice, aracrit rvisins ave arater dierent urse. Mark haes reers t te cntracts enrced btecnlical rtectin measures as “suer-crit.”9 he sas:

te use te term licence t reer t tese tes “suer-crit”

areements is smeat misleadin. … Prerl understd, tese

“suer-crit” areements are cmletel searate rm, and ad-

ditinal t, crit rtectin and imse cntractual restrictins

ic nl suld be enrceable i te user is cntractuall bund t

te restrictins and te restrictins are nt uncnscinable r ter-

ise aainst ublic lic.0

Tis last int — tat suc cntracts suld nl be enrceable i teare nt uncnscinable r aainst ublic lic — urter emasizestat man te questins ere are essentiall abut reulatin rivate

6 huenltz, abve nte 9 at 78.7 Pamela Samuelsn, “Crit, Diital Date, and Fair Use in Diital Netrked

Envirnments” in Ejan Macka et al., eds, Te Electronic Superhighway: Te Shape

o echnology and Law to Come (Te haue: Kluer La Internatinal, 99) 7at –6.

8 See r examle Copyright Act, abve nte , s. ,9 haes, abve nte 8 at –6.0 Ibid. at 6.




cntractual areements. Picture a trianle crit, cntract, andtecnl. Te urses te tecnl and cntract are clser t eacter tan eiter is t crit. Tis becmes even mre aarent enne lks at Bill C-60’s rvisins aainst tamerin it RMI. Tis is es-

sentiall a leislative sceme vernin cntracts abut access t and use diital cntent. Tis is nt reall abut crit — as Pressrs Kerrand Baile ave nted: “ile e reer t … ‘rits manaement’ sstems,at tese databases really manae is inrmatin.”

Ultimatel, includin reerences t crit ma stensibl relate tematter t te sce existin crit la, but it des nt cane te“true caracter” tis leislatin. In it and substance tis is erasmre a tecnlical, cntractual, r cmmercial matter tan a c-

rit matter. Te Gvernment’s rsed leislatin is best described as a paracopyright la — a la in bend existin crit la, altunt necessaril in sce, certainl in nature.

2) ef

Recmmendatins t limit te breadt eects aracrit rvi-sins are cmmn amn exerts ave studied tese issues. Until

n man te aruments ave been based rimaril n sund lic-makin. hever, titl cussed leislatin is nt just ise lic — itis cnstitutinall mandated. Sclars suc as Pressrs Kerr and Baileave nted tat rvisins incnsistent it undamental rits suc asrivac r reedm exressin ma vilate te Charter o Rights and Free-

doms. Te distinct cnstitutinal int tis aer is ten verlked.

Ian R. Kerr & Jane Baile, “Te Imlicatins Diital Rits Manaement

r Privac and Freedm Exressin” (00) J. Inrmatin, Cmmunica-tin & Etics in Sc’ 87, <tt://aers.ssrn.cm/sl/aers.cm?abstract_id=700> at 89.

See r examle Kerr, Maurusat, & acit, abve nte 9, and te surces citedterein.

Ian R. Kerr & Jane Baile, abve nte . Pressr Kerr as als nted tattese tes rvisins culd cntain “brad and vaue statements tat mant itstand cnstitutinal scrutin.” See Kerr, Maurusat, & acit, abvente 9 at 6. Exeriences in te United States ilit te cillin eect tatte DMCA’s aracrit rvisins ave ad n exressin. See r examle

United States v. Elcom Ltd., 0 F. Su. d (NDCal 00); Universal CityStudios v. Reimerdes, F. Su. d. 9 (SDNy 000), a’d 7 F. d 9 (d Cir.00) [Reimerdes]; Felten v. Recording Industry Association o America, Case N.CV-0-669 (GEB) (DistCtNJ). Fr a descritin te eects te DMCA inte scientic cmmunit, see Jere Sullivan & Tmas Mrr, “Practicin




Frm te ersective te divisin leislative ers, te brader teeect te ne rvisins, te urter te are rm te cre Parlia-ment’s autrit under te Crits clause and te mre te encracn rvincial jurisdictin ver Prert and Civil Rits. Tat is, even i

te urse aracrit rvisins is related t crit, bradereects te leislatin culd render it cnstitutinall invalid. It is eretat te recise sce te Gvernment’s rsal must be cnsidered,s te relevant rvisins are rerduced bel in ull.

Tere is a eneral treat tat PMs ill undermine crit la’s deli-cate balance beteen varius stakelders. Tis balance seeks t rvidesucient incentives t enerate and disseminate ne cultural rks ileat te same time resectin rits suc as reedm exressin, rivac,

cntractual autnm, and classic rivate rert, as ell urterin teublic’s interests. Altu PMs cannt dierentiate beteen c-rit inrinement and leitimate activities, leislatin cncernin PMsmit.

Reverse Enineerin in an Era Grin Cnstraints under te Diital Mil-lennium Crit Act and Oter Prvisins” (00) Alb. L.J. Sci. & ec.

. Indeed, r varius reasns, it as been suested tat te DMCA culd becnstitutinall inrm. See Glnn S. Lunne Jr., “Deat Crit: Diitalecnl, Private Cin, and te Diital Millennium Crit Act” (00)87 Va. L. Rev. 8 at 88. See als ycai Benkler, “Cnstitutinal Bunds Database Prtectin: Te Rle Judicial Revie in te Creatin and Denitin Private Rits in Inrmatin” (000) Berkele ec. L.J. at 8–;

ycai Benkler, “Free as Air t Cmmn Use: First Amendment Cnstraints nEnclsure te Public Dmain” (999) 7 N.y.U. L. Rev. at –9; Julie E.Cen, “Crit and te Jurisrudence Sel-hel” (998) Berkele ec.L.J. 089 at –; william Patr, “Te Enumerated Pers Dctrine and

Intellectual Prert: An Imminent Cnstitutinal Cllisin” (999) 67 Ge.was. L. Rev. 9 at 6.

See r examle Kerr, Maurusat, & acit, abve nte 9, at 7–; Samuelsn,abve nte ; Dan L. Burk & Julie E. Cen, “Fair Use Inrastructure r RitManaement Sstems” (00) harv. J.L. & ec. at 9–.

See, r examle Téberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc et al., 00 SCC, [00] S.C.R. 6, <.lexum.umntreal.ca/cscscc/en/ub/00/vl/tml/00scr_06.tml>, at aras. 0– [Téberge]; CCH Canadian Ltd. v.

Law Society o Upper Canada, 00 SCC , [00] S.C.R. 9, <.lexum.umntreal.ca/csc-scc/en/ub/00/vl/tml/00scr_09.tml> at aras.

0, –, , 8 and 70; [CCH Canadian]; and Society o Composers, Authors and Music Publishers o Canada v. Canadian Assn. o Internet Providers, [00] S.C.R.7, <.lexum.umntreal.ca/cscscc/en/ub/00/vl/tml/00scr_07.tml> at aras. 0–, 6, 88–89, 07, 9– [SOCAN v. CAIP]. (LeBel J. dis-sented r ter reasns: ibid. at ara. .).




Tere are t ke asects Bill C-60 tat ma limit its leal eects:nl PMs tat rdinaril rtect crits, neiburin, and mralrits are rtected, and nl circumventin r inrinin urses rrvidin circumventin services tat te rvider kns r ut t

kn ill result in inrinement are ribited. As mentined abve, it istemtin t cnclude tat tese qualicatins are sucient t eliminatean rblem cncernin te cnstitutinal divisin ers. hever,tat is nt te case. Aside rm te act tat (a) te test is nt crrelatinit te resent Copyright Act but it te Constitution Act, 1867, (b) tervisins’ strict leal eect is nl ne a number cnsideratins(in additin t teir urse and ractical eect) in caracterizin teit and substance te matter and (c) it is arriate t lk at bt

Parliament’s and te rvinces’ rle in tis debate, tere is anter is-sue t discuss in resect te rvisins’ leal eects: (d) te rsedlimitatins ma nt ar enu, as ambiuities make it dicult t drarm cnclusins.

Subsectin () Bill C-60 denes a “tecnlical measure” as:

an tecnl, device r cmnent tat, in te rdinar curse

its eratin, restricts te din — in resect a material rm

a rk, a errmer’s errmance xed in a sund recrdin r asund recrdin — an act tat is mentined in sectin , r

8 r tat culd cnstitute an inrinement an alicable mral

rits ….

It is unclear eter te denitin a “tecnical measure” turns unte eneral te tecnical measure at issue (i.e., a ardare r starebased access cntrl, c cntrl, encrtin, scramblin, etc.)6 r n tearticular use te measure in a iven instance.

Te rmer interretatin seems like te arac taken, r examle,in te German Copyright Act, ic adts te lanuae te E.C. Copy-

right Directive almst exactl (Bill C-60 substitutes “rdinar” r “nr-

6 Secic examles tecnlical measures rtected under tis denitinmit include te Cntent Scramble Sstem (CSS), ic alls mtin icturecmanies t cntrl access t cntent DVDs, r te Secure Diital Music

Initiative (SDMI), ic as been used t cntrl cin, uladin musict te Internet, and laback n rtable devices. Fr a descritin CSS andSDMI tecnl, see r examle Dean S. Marks & Bruce h. urnbull, “ecni-cal Prtectin Measures: Te Intersectin ecnl, La and CmmercialLicences” (000) E.I.P.R. 98 at 07.




mal”).7 On tis interretatin, te denitin uld encmass measurestat rtect crits, neiburin, and mral rits, but culd alsencmass a ide arra urter measures. Te rase “in te rdinarcurse its eratin” raises rblems. Te last time te Gvernment

used te rd “rdinaril” in te Copyright Act (as art te rivate c-in reime) it as interreted t mean, in eect, nt extrardinaril.8 Adjectives like rdinar and nrmal dn’t necessaril cature rrtin-alit, at least nt as interreted in Canadian crit la.9 A measuretat is used smetimes r ten, even i nt rimaril r exclusivel, incnnectin it crit uld all itin te rsed denitin. Tecnstitutinal rblem ere is tat a te measure culd be rtectedeven tu te vast majrit uses r tat measure are uncnnected

it rits under te Copyright Act, let alne te Crits clause. Tatte cnstitutinalit te rivate cin reime as been called intquestin, in art because te breadt te term “rdinaril,”60 suldbe taken as a arnin t titen te meanin a tecnical measure.

Te secnd interretatin, ic uld lk t te articular use a measure in a iven instance t determine eter it alls itin tedenitin, is als rblematic but less s rm a cnstitutinal ersec-tive. Altu a measure alied t nn-crit materials ill nt bertected aainst circumventin, it is uncertain at ill aen ere ameasure rtects bt crit and nn-crit materials in te samediital rk. A rerted leal decisin illustrates te tential rblemere: te eadnte ma be subject t crit ereas te underlin

7 German Copyright Act 9 Setember 96, as amended n 0 Setember 00(Enlis translatin) <tt://eurrits.cdreaks.cm/index//>; and Direc-

tive 0019/EC te Eurean Parliament and te Cuncil Ma 00n te armnisatin certain asects crit and related rits in teinrmatin sciet, Ocial Jurnal L67/0, /06/00, <.ivir.nl/leislatin/eu/crit-directive.dc>. See enerall Alexander Peukert“Cuntr Rert German” <.eur-crits.r/index//9>; and P.Bernt huenltz, “w te Crit Directive is Unimrtant, and PssiblInvalid” (000) E.I.P.R. 99.

8 Private Copying 1999-2000, ari o Levies to be Collected by CPCC (Re) (999), C.P.R. (t) , <.cb-cda.c.ca/decisins/c7999-b.d>, a’d AVS ech-

nologies Inc. v. Canadian Mechanical Reproduction Rights Agency, [000] F.C.J. N.

960, <tt://decisins.ct-c.c.ca/ct/000/a-9-00.stml>.9 Private Copying 1999-2000, ibid .60 See deBeer, abve nte 6, discussin Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Cana-

dian Storage Media Alliance, [00] FCA , <tt://decisins.ca-ca.c.ca/ca/00/00ca.stml>.




judement is nt.6 In suc a case te measure is rbabl encmasseditin te denitin in Bill C-60, meanin tat rtectin mit extendbend at is n rtected b crit.

Te rblem ver-breadt culd be addressed b relacin te term

“rdinar” in te denitin tecnlical measure. Unrtunatel,te Bill des nt incrrate te suestin a Gvernment-snsredmemrandum tat a measure suld be rtected nl i it “is ‘ primarily’ intended t restrict crit inrinement and its eect is t ‘ primarily’ re-strict crit inrinement.”6 were te denitins limited t measurestat exclusively relate t rks and activities rtected under te Copyright

Act, te leislatin’s cnstitutinal status mit be even mre secure. Buti a tecnical measure becmes rtected aainst circumventin merel

because it rtects, smetimes r in art, crited materials, tis illexand te la’s bundaries sinicantl.6 In eect, te la ill nt belimited t rtectin te tecnlies tat rtect crits; it ill r-tect PMs per se. Tis treatens its status as valid crits la.

Granted, under sectin .0(), circumventin suc measures ill nlbe ribited i dne r an inrinin urse. Te Bill cntains te ll-in tree rvisins dealin it circumventin tecnlical measures.In srt, crit, neiburin, and mral rits lders can revent:() circumventin PMs r te urse crit inrinement; ()anne rm erin r rvidin circumventin services tat te rviderkns r ut t kn ill result in an inrinement; and () trackin inrks rm ic PMs ave been remved. Mre articularl,

.0 () An ner crit in a rk, a errmer’s errm-

ance xed in a sund recrdin r a sund recrdin and a lder

mral rits in resect a rk r suc a errmer’s errm-

ance are, subject t tis Act, entitled t all remedies b a injunctin, damaes, accunts, deliver u and terise tat are r

ma be cnerred b la r te inrinement a rit aainst a

6 CCH Canadian v. Law Society o Upper Canada, 00 FCA 87 at aras. 77–78,<tt://decisins.ct-c.c.ca/ct/00/00ca87.stml> a’d. CCH Canadian,abve nte .

6 haes, abve nte 8 (emasis added).6 In Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink echnologies, Inc., 9 F.Su.d 0 (NDIll

00), 7 U.S.P.Q.D ; 8 F.d 78 (CAFed 00) at [Chamberlain], tecurt nted tat tis culd “all an manuacturer an rduct t add a sinlecrited sentence r stare rament t its rduct, ra te critedmaterial in a trivial ‘encrtin’ sceme, and tereb ain te rit t restrictcnsumers’ rits t use its rducts in cnjunctin it cmetin rducts.”




ersn , itut te cnsent te crit ner r mral

rits lder, circumvents, remves r in an a renders ineective

a tecnlical measure rtectin an material rm te rk,

te errmer’s errmance r te sund recrdin r te urse

an act tat is an inrinement te crit in it r te mralrits in resect it r r te urse makin a c reerred t

in subsectin 80().

() An ner crit r a lder mral rits reerred t

in subsectin () as te same remedies aainst a ersn ers

r rvides a service t circumvent, remve r render ineective a

tecnlical measure rtectin a material rm te rk, te

errmer’s errmance r te sund recrdin and kns r ut

t kn tat rvidin te service ill result in an inrinement te crit r mral rits.

() I a tecnlical measure rtectin a material rm a

rk, a errmer’s errmance r a sund recrdin reerred t in

subsectin () is remved r rendered ineective in a manner tat

des nt ive rise t te remedies under tat subsectin, te ner

crit r lder mral rits neverteless as tse rem-

edies aainst a ersn kns r ut t kn tat te measure

as been remved r rendered ineective and, itut te ner’sr lder’s cnsent, des an te llin acts it resect t te

material rm in questin:

(a) sells it r rents it ut;

(b) distributes it t suc an extent as t rejudiciall aect te

ner te crit;

(c) b a trade, distributes it, exses r ers it r sale r

rental r exibits it in ublic; r(d ) imrts it int Canada r te urse din antin re-

erred t in an araras (a) t (c).

Te reerence t a “urse act tat is an inrinement crit”means tat circumventin r te urse air dealin r ter leiti-mate activities under te Copyright Act ill be ermitted. It culd als bessible t circumvent t exercise classic rert rits nrmall assci-ated it nersi tanible rert, just as in te Téberge case.6

Cnsumers ill be alled t circumvent in accrdance it teir exress

6 Téberge, abve nte .




r imlied cntractual rits, as an act dne it te autrizatin tecrit ner is nt an inrinement.

Te details tis qualicatin, ever, remain unclear. It is relativelbvius tat te nus t rve an inrinin urse ill lie n te lain-

ti. Prcedurall, te inrinin urse requirement is nt a deence rexcetin. But still, is te urse t be determined? wat i teurse as t inrine, but in act n inrinement ultimatel ccurs?Is te circumventr’s subjective intentin at te time circumventin rte ultimate activit carried ut llin circumventin determinative?I liabilit r circumventin turns n eter r nt te ultimate activi-ties ere inrinin, te ractical eect ma be t eliminate air dealinsalteter, as e ele uld be illin t risk te cnsequences an

nest but mistaken belie. I a subjective test intentin ere adted,it mit enable a ersn it a bona de claim air dealin t exerciseis/er utative rits cndentl. Te adtin tis latter test maave a less drastic eect, and uld terere, be mre clsel alinedit existin crit dctrine.

It is als rblematic tat te imlicit rit t circumvent PMs rnn-inrinin urses ill be racticall rtless. As I alluded t,tere are t tes “eects” tentiall relevant t an analsis tedivisin ers: leal eects and ractical eects. In arriate cases,ne can lk bend “te ur crners te leislatin”6 at evidence “te actual r redicted ractical eect te leislatin in eratin.”66 An exlicit rit t circumvent r nn-inrinin urses, culed ituaranteed access t te means t d s, uld mre clsel alin te e-ects te ne reime it te sce existin crit la. Tat is,r te limitatins in Bill C-60 t be meaninul in ractice, tere must bemecanisms in lace t ensure cnsumers ave nt nl te rit but alste abilit t circumvent PMs.67 Tis culd be in te rm ribitins

6 Reerence re: Anti-Infation Act, [976] S.C.R. 7 at 88–89. Practical eects ma ntalas ave reat analtic sinicance: see Morgentaler, abve nte 7 at 8–88.

66 Reerence re: Alberta Legislation, [98] S.C.R. 00 at 0.67 Evidence te ractical eects aracrit leislatin n uld-be air

use can be und in a ell-knn U.S. case ere hlld mvie studissued tree individuals sted cies and links t DeCSS stare tatdecrted DVDs. Te District Curt issued an injunctin, ndin tat air use

des nt al under te DMCA: see Reimerdes, abve nte . Te AealsCurt armed tis decisin, ndin tat te DMCA des nt undul burdenair use rits, because tere as “n autrit r te rsitin tat airuse … uarantees cin b te timum metd r in te identical rmat te riinal.” Ibid. at , 0–9; Elcom, abve nte at –; 321 Studios




aainst te use PMs in certain circumstances, r a statutr bliatint acilitate certain uses materials uarded b PMs. Even tis ma ntbe enu ever. Te E.C. Copyright Directive cntains a rul similarrequirement, but tis as been criticized as seriusl decient (and s-

sibl invalid) in terms its cmlexit and lack ractical meanin.68

But it seems tat te Gvernment des nt intend t enact rtectinsaainst te abuse PMs. Peras tis is because suc cnsumer rtec-tin asects aracrit rvisins are a matter r te rvinces tdeal it. I s, tis culd be evidence tat te entire sceme is ultra vires

Parliament’s autrit, as te cnsumer rtectin issues are an interalelement leislatin addressin PMs and RMI. Or it culd be tat tisis an area sared resnsibilit. At tis int, it is enu t sa tat i

te Gvernment des nt include mecanisms t render te rvisins’limited leal eects racticall meaninul, tis ill increase te ssibil-it tat te leislatin’s verall eects culd render te rvisins cnsti-tutinall invalid.

Anter questin abut te leal eect sectin .0() is eter itculd create a nvel “rit access” t rks — te abilit critlders t cntrl crit, errmance, distributin, etcetera, andals access t a rk. Since it is nt resentl an inrinement t access acrited rk, Bill C-60 aears t all r te circumventin ureaccess cntrls. hever, tis distinctin ma nt ave muc ractical si-nicance because accessin a diital rk usuall invlves makin a c,albeit eemeral. Tis culd eectivel create a sui generis rit access.69 Altu sme arue tis is a natural evlutin crit,70 ters sait cnstitutes an unrecedented exansin.7 Eiter a, te likelid

v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. 07 F.Su.d 08 (NDCal 00). Tis, curse, inres te cnsumers’ classic rert rits: see Jerem F. deBeer,“Recncilin Prert Rits in Plants” (00) 8: J. wrld Intellectual Pr-ert , <tt://aers.ssrn.cm/sl/aers.cm?abstract_id=6096>.

68 See huenltz, abve nte 7.69 Tis ma nt ave been intended b te wIPO Internet reaties: see enerall

de werra, abve nte 9 at –; Burk , abve nte ; and Micael Landau, “haste Diital Millennium Crit Act Reall Created a Ne Exclusive Rit

Access? Attemtin t Reac a Balance Beteen Users’ and Cntent Prviders’Rits” (00) 9 J. Cr. Sc’ USA 77.

70 Jane C. Ginsbur, “Frm havin Cies t Exeriencin wrks: te Devel-ment an Access Rit in U.S. Crit La” (00) 0 J. Cr. Sc’ USA, <tt://aers.ssrn.cm/sl/aers.cm?abstract_id=9>.

7 See r examle Samuelsn, abve nte ; and Kamiel J. Kelman, “Te Prtec-tin ecnlical Measures vs. te Crit Limitatins” (Paer Presented




tat te ractical eect tis rvisin ill be t create a rit accesst diital materials is a dearture rm existin crit rinciles. Tedebate is siml abut te lent tis lea.

Te mst dramatic leal and ractical eects Bill C-60’s aracrit

rvisins mit result rm sectin .0(), ic addresses “services tcircumvent.” Tis rvisin is sruded in ambiuit. On te ne and, itculd be meant t cver te eratin a circumventin business, s tseak. Jaan, r instance, as adted suc an arac.7 Altu teJaanese vernment as dened service muc mre clearl, te Japanese

Copyright Law ribits all circumventin businesses, nt just circumven-tin businesses it knlede eventual inrinement, s tis uldnt be a mdel r Canada t ll.

Sectin .0() Bill C-60 culd als be interreted siml t clsea lle tat mit arise ere a ersn arranes r smene else tcircumvent a tecnlical measure rater tan din it im/ersel, inessence like a rincial and aent. In suc a case, te rincial ma nt beliable because e/se uld nt ave circumvented te tecnical measure,and te aent ma nt be liable because e/se uld nt ave ad aninrinin urse. Neiter art uld all under sectin .0(), butsectin .0() mit al. I tat ere te case, ten sectin .0()uld nt be muc mre r less bjectinable tan an te ter ara-crit rvisins. Unrtunatel, a curt ma nt ive tis sectin suca narr interretatin. In act, i tis narr interretatin is crrect,te rvisin is rbabl unnecessar. Tere uld be n “ lle” i teurse reerred t in sectin .0() includes anter ersn’s urse.

t ALAI Cnress, June 00), <.alai-usa.r/00_cnerence/_rram_en.tm>. U.S. cases tat raised tis issue illustrate te breadt eects tataracrit rvisins culd ave n matters terise related t rert,cntract, and lcal cmmerce. In ne suc case, ic ultimatel rejected telainti’s claim, te Federal Circuit stated: “te arriate deterrents t tis[circumventin] beaviur lie in trt la and criminal la, nt in crit la.”See Chamberlain Group v. Skylink echnologies, 9 F.Su.d 0 (N.D.Ill. 00);8 F.d 78 (CAFed 00) at . Anter U.S. case as been criticized r but-tressin a airl naked attemt t use aracrit la t relace te rdinar

rules cntract and cmmerce. See Dan L. Burk, “Cntrl te Atermarkettru Crit” (00-00) 7 harv. J.L. & ec. 07, criticizin Lexmark In-

ternational, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., (00) F.Su. d 9 (USDCE.K. 00), 87 F.d (C.A.6 K.).

7 See Copyright Law o Japan, abve nte 0, art. ; and Japan Update, abve nte 0.




Tis is alread te case it air dealin — ne can deal airl r anter’surses.7 Tus, .0() culd easil be remved rm Bill C-60.

Din s uld a ln a tard strentenin te aruments inavur cnstitutinal validit, as it uld eliminate te drastic leal

and ractical eects tat culd result rm a ssible brader interre-tatin. Tese rvisins culd terise revlutinize te rinciles tird-art liabilit r crit inrinement b relacin Canada’sell-settled rules vernin te autrizatin inrinin acts it te American dctrine cntributr inrinement.7 Te Sureme Curt asexlicitl cautined tat suc a mve “must be scrutinized ver careullbecause sme undamental dierences in crit cncets” beteente t cuntries.7 Suc a sudden and radical sit ma nt be ermitted

under Canada’s Crits clause.Presentl in Canada: “a ersn des nt autrize inrinement b au-

trizin te mere use equiment tat culd be used t inrine c-rit,”76 nr b manuacturin, distributin, r marketin equiment usedt inrine crit unless tere is a relatinsi care and cntrl.77 Bill C-60, ever, culd result in liabilit r anne rvides a “ser-vice t circumvent.” Te meanin “service” is unclear. Crit ldersare likel t arue tat te eect is n dierent rm te DMCA’s ban n acircumventin “tecnl, rduct, service, device [r] cmnent.”78 TeDMCA cntains a list alternative actrs tat can brin a service itinits sce, ereas te rsed Canadian leislatin uld incrratea requirement knlede inrinement. Under Bill C-60, erin rrvidin a service t circumvent is ribited nl i te rvider knsr ut t kn tat an inrinement ill result. Altu tis sundslike a i urdle r laintis, te evidentiar burden is reall nt ner-us. Actual subjective knlede is nt required, as it is enu tat tervider “ut t kn” te results is/er actins. And desite te

7 CCH Canadian, abve nte .7 Sony Corp. o America v. Universal Studios, 6 U.S. 7 (98); Metro-Goldwyn-

Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 80 F.d (CA 9t), S.Ct. 60 (00). As crit exert Mark haes nted in is vernment-cmmissinedmemrandum: “Te intrductin a reime t ban circumventin devices …uld necessitate sme undamental retinkin Canadian crit la.” hecalled tis a “undamental cane in Canadian la relatin t inrinin equi-

ment and autrizatin.” haes, abve nte 8.7 Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc., [980] SCR 7.76 CCH Canadian, abve nte at ara. 8. See als SOCAN v. CAIP, abve nte .77 CCH Canadian, abve nte at ara. 8.78 DMCA, abve nte , § 0(a)().




aarent certaint te rd “ill” (as sed t culd r mit), tereasnable rvider merel ut t kn tat “an” inrinement (ntsme r man) ill result. Te number nn-inrinin uses te ser-vice uld seem t be irrelevant under sectin .0(), and it isn’t clear

at stes a service rvider must take t assure im/ersel tat n in-rinement ill ccur. Under existin Canadian la, a rvider rd-ucts r services tat culd be used r inrinement is entitled t resumelaul use.79 will tat still be te case?

Lasuits under te DMCA ave created te tential r at as beencalled “tertiar” r “quaternar” liabilit.80 Te leal eect tis t, treer even ur-ste dearture rm existin Canadian crit la uld bet create a brand ne rm civil liabilit under te ausices te Copy-

right Act. Even i te leal eects are nt as drastic as eared, te uncertaintalne ma ave a cillin eect n te tecnl sectr as manuactur-ers and distributrs seek t avid litiatin. Furtermre, tere is als arelatinsi beteen sectin .0() and sectin .0(), as tential airusers and ter nn-inriners ma nt ave access t tecnlies tat a-cilitate te exercise teir rits. In sum, sectin .0() unnecessaril jeardizes te cnstitutinal validit te entire sceme.

I circumventin is ermitted under sectins .0() r .0(), a er-sn’s subsequent use te circumvented material ma be ribited undersectin .0(). Suc a rvisin uld seem redundant, as it is usuall al-read an inrinement t distribute crit material. avid te risk unintended cnsequences tat mit treaten te cnstitutinalit tene sceme, tis sectin mit siml be eliminated rm Bill-60.

Te Bill als deals it “rits manaement inrmatin,” ic is de-ned in subsectin () as inrmatin tat:

(a) is attaced t r embdied in a material rm a rk, a er-rmer’s errmance xed in a sund recrdin r a sund re-

crdin, r aears in cnnectin it its cmmunicatin t te

ublic b telecmmunicatin, and

(b) identies r ermits te identicatin te rk r its autr,

te errmance r its errmer, te sund recrdin r its mak-

er r an tem, r cncerns te terms r cnditins its use.

79 CCH Canadian, abve nte .80 Mark A. Lemle & Antn R. Reese, “Reducin Diital Crit Inrinement

witut Restrictin Innvatin” (00) 6 Stan. L. Rev. , citin Landau,abve nte 69, and Burk, abve nte .




It is ntert tat te denitin “rits manaement inrmatin”includes inrmatin cncernin te terms r cnditins te use ark tat ma ave ntin t d it te existence r sce critrtectin. Aarentl, inrmatin cncernin an and all cntractualterms ill be rtected, as ln as te cntract cncerns a rk rtectedb crit, neiburin, r mral rits.

Te llin t rvisins ribit tamerin it RMI:

.0 () Te ner crit in a rk … is, subject t tis Act,

entitled t all remedies … cnerred b la r te inrinement

a rit aainst a ersn , itut te cnsent te crit

ner, kninl remves r alters an rits manaement inr-

matin in electrnic rm tat is attaced t r embdied in anmaterial rm te rk … r aears in cnnectin it its cm-

municatin t te ublic b telecmmunicatin and kns, r ut

t kn, tat te remval r alteratin ill acilitate r cnceal an

inrinement te ner’s crit.

() Te ner crit reerred t in subsectin () as te

same remedies aainst a ersn , itut te ner’s cnsent,

kninl des an te llin acts it resect t an materi-

al rm te rk, … and kns r ut t kn tat te ritsmanaement inrmatin as been remved r altered in a a tat

uld ive rise t a remed under subsectin ():

(a) sells it r rents it ut;

(b) distributes it t suc an extent as t rejudiciall aect te

ner te crit;

(c) b a trade, distributes it, exses r ers it r sale r

rental r exibits it in ublic;(d ) imrts it int Canada r te urse din antin re-

erred t in an araras (a) t (c); r

(e) cmmunicates it t te ublic b telecmmunicatin.

Te anti-tamerin ribitin in sectin .0() ma ave sinicanteects n te rtectin ersnal rivac. Te denitins PMs and,eseciall, RMI culd rtect cmuter rrams tat autmaticall cl-lect ersnal inrmatin. As a result, it ill be an inrinement c-

rit en a cnsumer tamers it r circumvents suc a rram andten enaes in an te subsequent uses ribited in sectins .0()and .0(). Tis culd, aruabl, undul trenc n users’ rivac andrert rits.




Te last int t make abut te eect te rsed rvisins cn-cerns te nature te remed rvided. Bt sectins .0 and .0er t a crit ner “… all remedies b a injunctin, damaes,accunts, deliver u and terise tat are r ma be cnerred b la

r te inrinement a rit ….” Tis is ver brad. Te remedies avail-able seem nt t be limited t remedies under te Copyright Act, but s-tensibl include all remedies cnerred b an la. It uld make sense tinterret inrinement a “rit” as meanin a crit, neiburin,r mral rit. Tis suld be claried ever, r te leal eect tisrvisin culd ave a brader sce.

c. enuMerAtedLegIsLAtIvepowers

Te matter PMs and RMI is nt clearl allcated itin te cnstitu-tinal divisin ers. Suc aracrit rvisins raise issues internatinal la, crit, criminal, rert, trt, cntract, cmeti-tin, cnsumer rtectin, and ter cmmercial la. In terms te di-visin ers, tis imlicates Crits, Prert and Civil Rits,rade and Cmmerce, Criminal La, and te Peace, Order, and Gd Gv-ernment Canada. As mentined, tere is cnsiderable verla beteen

tese cateries, and te idea tat rvincial and ederal leislatrs mitsare resnsibilit ver PMs and RMI sstems is lausible.

Unrtunatel, it is unclear at is te exact manner in ic t as-sess cnstitutinal validit at tis stae te analsis.8 Certainl, i teGvernment’s rsal is in it and substance itin ederal jurisdic-tin, tere is n cnstitutinal rblem reardless te deree t icit ma als aect a rvincial er. Parliament can exercise its erst te ullest extent necessar r eective reulatin areas itin its

cmetence. But, at sme int, te rvisins ill lse teir link t ed-eral jurisdictin and becme in it and substance a rvincial matter.

I te matter is in it and substance itin rvincial jurisdictin, teGvernment’s rsal uld seem t be cnstitutinall invalid. But, itis still ssible tat it mit be salvaed i it is necessaril incidental tan verall valid ederal sceme.8 Cnstitutinal validit ill ten turnn just ar te rvisins ave trenced int rvincial dmain, and

8 Patrick J. Mnaan, Constitutional Law, d ed. (rnt: Irin La, 00) at–.

8 Kitkatla, abve nte .




interal te are t te verall valid ederal sceme.8 Given te Su-reme Curt’s advice tat te arac must be exible rater tan tec-nical r rmalistic,8 te llin discussin siml ilits te kecnsideratins.

1) cyi

Determinin eter PMs and RMI are sucientl linked t Crits,r eter te Gvernment’s rsal es t ar, requires an analsis te sce Parliament’s autrit under sectin 9(). Te dicultlere is te absence judicial autrit r academic cmmentar n int.In 8 ears cnstitutinal interretatin, curts ave rarel tuced

n Parliament’s autrit under te Crits clause.8 Academic cm-mentar is similarl sarse.86

Based n ru sketces istrical, internatinal, cncetual andunctinal ersectives, it seems tat te Crits clause ives Parlia-ment te autrit t enact leislatin it te aim and eect r-mtin autrs’ cultural exressin.87 Neiburin rits, rtectinerrmers, recrd rducers, r ter distributrs are erieral. Al-tu teir cnstitutinal validit is ten taken r ranted, tis as

never actuall been settled.88 Similarl, mral rits ma lie nearer t teede te Crits clause.89

8 Ibid ; see als General Motors, abve nte .8 Morgentaler, abve nte 7 at 8.8 See r examle Smiles v. Belord , [876] O.J. N. 8 (Ont. Ct. Cancer), a’d

[877] O.J. N. 0 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Ferguson, [9] w.w.R. 7 (B.C.C.A.);

Composers, Authors & Publishers Ass’n. o Canada v. Elmwood Hotel Ltd., [96] Ex.C.R. 6; Composers, Authors & Publishers Association o Canada, Ltd. v. Sandholm

Holdings Ltd., (9), C.P.R. 8; Bishop v. elemetropole Inc., (98), C.P.R.(d) 9 (F.C..D.); Doulton Canada Inc. v. Cassidy’s Ltd., [986] F.C. 7; Aldrich

v. One Stop Video Ltd. (987), B.C.L.R. (d) 06 (S.C.); Society o Composers,

Authors and Music Publishers o Canada v. Landmark Cinemas o Canada, (99), C.P.R. (d) 6; Evangelical Fellowship o Canada v. Canadian Musical Reproduction

Rights Agency, [000] F.C. 86 (C.A.); Private Copying 1999–2000, abve nte 8;and CPCC v. CSMA abve nte 60.

86 deBeer, abve nte 6.

87 Ibid .88 See r examle wanda Nel & L.B.Z. Davis, “Sme Cnstitutinal Cnsider-

atins in Canadian Crit La Revisin (98) C.P.R. d 7.89 See r examle David Vaver, abve nte 6; and David Vaver, “Autrs’ Mral

Rits in Canada” (98) IIC 9.




Crit, neiburin, and mral rits lders, ever, are nlart te equatin. Te mst imrtant tin abut crit la isat it ribits: crits, like all rert r mnl rits, limitat ele can d.90 Crits are, b denitin, cnstraints n individ-

uals’ rits.9 S Parliament’s autrit includes balancin encuraementr autrs aainst te scial interest in disseminatin, and aainst terindividuals’ basic rert, cntractual, and cnstitutinal rits. Ntetat tere are tree seres interests, nt t, tat require balancin:creatrs, te eneral ublic, and individual cnsumers.9

Balance is a undamental rincile in crit la,9 but it is alscnstitutinall mandated. It mit be ne t sa tat autrs’ interestand sciet’s interest bt all itin te sce Parliament’s er

ver Crits. hever, e are nt merel ittin crit aainstte brad and eras vaue ublic interest. we are measurin critaainst ter identiable rits — uman rits, cntractual rits, andclassic rert rits.9 In act, tis is at Téberge as all abut. TeCurt ad t ei ne rit (a crit) aainst anter (a classic r-ert rit). Tis asect “balance” imlicates nt just Crits but alsPrert and Civil Rits.

Accrdinl, rvincial autrit ver Prert and Civil Rits markste bundar valid ederal Crits las. Tis is nt t sa tat allCrits leislatin is an invalid intrusin int a rvincial ead er. Parliament ma trenc int rvincial jurisdictin as an incidentalcnsequence leislatin itin its cnstitutinal dmain. But, at smeint, tere is a line tat cannt be crssed. Because tis is nt a britline, dicult cases arise at te marins — leislatin in resect PMsand RMI sstems is an examle. In brderline cases, te Sureme Curtas candidl nted tat te curts must seek t maintain an “arriatebalance . . . beteen te ederal and rvincial eads er.”9 Granted,tis srt balance is dierent rm te traditinal balancin r licreasns, but it uld neverteless be air t sa tat balance is cnstitu-tinall entrenced in Crits la.

90 Jerem waldrn, “Frm Autrs t Ciers: Individual Rits and Scial Valuesin Intellectual Prert” (99) 68 Ci.-Kent L. Rev. 8 at 8.

9 deBeer, abve nte 6.

9 Ibid.9 Abve nte .9 See deBeer, abve nte 6.9 Reerence re: Firearms Act, [000] S.C.R. 78 at ara. 8 [Firearms Reerence],

cited in Mnaan, abve nte 8 [emasis added].




In lit te abve analsis te urse and eects te Gvern-ment’s rsed leislatin, it culd be dicult t caracterize it as, init and substance, allin itin Parliament’s autrit ver Crits.Indeed, te relatinsi beteen aracrit rvisins and C-

rits seems t be based n a e tenuus links: te utative urse acilitatin te cmmercial distributin rks subject t crit inrder t indirectl encurae autrs’ cultural creativit, te leall am-biuus and eras racticall meaninless limitatins n te eects,and te act te rvisins ill be intrduced tru amendments t teCopyright Act.

hever, even i te rsed aracrit rvisins are nt tem-selves a matter Crits, te ma be “necessaril incidental” t

validl enacted ederal leislatin. Tere are tree questins t cnsider:d te rvisins trenc int rvincial jurisdictin, are te art anverall valid ederal leislative sceme, and are te sucientl interat-ed it tat sceme t be ueld.96 Since te Gvernment’s rsal desseem t trenc int rvincial jurisdictin ver Prert and Civil Rits,and e are in resence an verall valid ederal leislatin, te Copyright

Act, te crux te issue is eter te rsed rvisins ill be “su-cientl interated” it te Copyright Act t itstand scrutin.

In dierent cntexts, curts ave set dn dierent requirements rsucient interatin. As ut b Dicksn C.J. in General Motors, e mustdecide “at test ‘t’ is arriate.”97 Fit, accrdin t Dicksn C.J.,lks at ell te rvisin is interated int te leislatin and imrtant it is r te ecac te leislatin as a le. On te acts General Motors, te Curt ueld te imuned leislatin as unctionally

related t te eneral bjective te leislatin. B cmarisn, in Vapor,te Curt eld tat te rvisin in questin as entirely unconnected tte verall sceme.98 Oter ssible tests include “ratinal and unctinalcnnectin,”99 “ancillar,” “necessaril incidental” and “trul necessar,”00 “an intimate cnnectin,” “an interal art”0 r “a cmlementar r-

96 Kitkatla, abve nte , at ara. 8.97 General Motors, abve nte at aras. –7.98 Ibid. at aras. 67–86.99 Papp v. Papp, [970] O.R. ; R. v. Zelensky, [978] S.C.R. 90; Multiple Access

Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [98] S.C.R. 6 [ Multiple Access].00 Regional Municipality o Peel v. MacKenzie, [98] S.C.R. 9; R. v. Tomas Fuller

Construction Co. (98) Ltd., [980] S.C.R. 69.0 Northern elecom Ltd v. Communications Workers o Canada, [980] S.C.R. ;

Clark v. Canadian National Railway Co., [988] S.C.R. 680.




visin.”0 In essence, tere is reall a sectrum ssible tests — itvarin derees scrutin — tat ne culd al t determine eter arvisin is sucientl interated it an verall valid leislatin.

Alin te GM “unctinall related” test r interatin, arac-

rit rvisins culd be ueld i it as successull arued tat te ul-timate, albeit indirect, bjective as t encurae autrs. Suc bein tesame bjective as te Copyright Act as a le, aracrit rvisinsuld be tls ermittin te statute in eneral t be mre rkable andecient. hever, tis relies n a series assumtins abut te meritsr demerits netrks, te rle crrate intermediaries in tecreative and distributin rcess, and te relatinsi beteen tecnl-, cntract, and crit. Even n te lest tresld interatin,

terere, Bill C-60’s aracrit rvisins ma ail.Certainl, aracrit rvisins are b n means “trul necessar”

and d nt ave an “intimate cnnectin” it te rest te Act. Te areclearl nt ivtal. Te Copyright Act erates reasnabl ell as it is, it-ut suc rvisins. Cases are n rkin teir a tru te curts,indicatin tat crit la rvides lent rtectin r creatrsand distributrs diital cntent.0 Obviusl, tese rvisins uld beeasil severable rm te Act.

Precisel ic test “t” ill be alied all deends un arte rvisin intrudes n rvincial ers. A rvisin tat “encrac-es marinall” ma nl require a “unctinal” relatinsi, ereas a“il intrusive” rvisin calls r a stricter test. Te mre te rvi-sin crees int te ter vernment’s jurisdictin, te arder it ill bet sustain its validit.0

Given te deree t ic te Gvernment’s rsal trences intrvincial jurisdictin ver Prert and Civil Rits, as discussed bel,it is ssible — altu ar rm certain — tat tese aracrit r-visins can be sustained as valid ederal leislatin under te Critsclause. O curse, i te rsal as mdied t take accunt te cn-cerns exressed in tis aer, te dds tat te leislatin uld it-stand cnstitutinal scrutin mit be increased. Certainl, an brader

0 MacDonald v. Vapor Canada Ltd ., [977] S.C.R. [Vapor Canada].

0 Recrd rducers ave and ill cntinue t sue under existin crit la,and ave alauded te “bluerint” r din s, ic as recentl rvidedb te Federal Curt Aeal in BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 00 FCA 9, <tt://decisins.ca-ca.c.ca/ca/00/00ca9.stml>.

0 General Motors, abve nte at aras. –7.




rvisins uld exacerbate te cnstitutinal rblems. At least, tere-re, Bill C-60 suld nt be bradened eiter b te relevant leislativecmmittee bere it is enacted r b te curts ater it becmes la.

2) py&ciilri

Prert and Civil Rits as been interreted t be amn te brad-est all te cnstitutinal eads er. Mnaan ntes tat startinit Citizens’ Insurance Co. v. Parsons0 te Priv Cuncil bean t denete rvinces’ er s as t virtuall “encmass te entire eld la-makin aart rm criminal la.”06 Sme mit arue, ever, tat tervinces ave jurisdictin ver Prert and Civil Rits, except ins-

ar as Crits r certain asects rade and Cmmerce are invlved.wile tis is enerall true t sme extent, te lines beteen tese cat-eries are ar rm clear. And, as mentined, tere is a line tat canntbe crssed.

It as suested abve tat Bill C-60’s aracrit rvisins ma betanentiall linked t Crits, and desite teir intrusin int Pr-ert and Civil Rits, culd stand i te are sucientl interated itan verall valid leislative sceme. hever, tis ma actuall state te

matter backards. Te Gvernment’s rsal mit instead all mainln te rvinces’ side te re area beteen Crits and Prertand Civil Rits. In tis lit, leislatin in resect PMs uld seemt be in it and substance a matter Prert and Civil Rits, ivinte rvinces te rit t trenc incidentall int Crits. It uldnt seem t be in it and substance Crits, ic uld ive teederal vernment te rit t trenc incidentall int Prert and Civ-il Rits. wen te true caracter te rsed rvisins is revealed,

tis mit aear t sme t be a “clurable”07 attemt t exand tebundaries Crits in a cnstitutinall imermissible manner.

At least, tis mit be an instance ere te duble asect dctrinemit al. Tis dctrine, altu nt extinct, is rarel used.08 Never-teless, in tis case, even i PMs and RMI sstems ere mainl a matter

0 (88), 7 A Cas. 96. (P.C.).06 Mnaan, abve nte 8 at .

07 Switzman v. Elbling , [97] S.C.R. 8 at 0.08 Bell Canada v. Québec (Commission de santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec),

[988] S.C.R. 79; Rio Hotel Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Liquor Licensing Board), [987] S.C.R. 9; Multiple Access, abve nte 00; Hodge v. Te Queen (88), 9 A.Cas. 7; Russell v. Te Queen (88), 7 A. Cas. 89.




Crits, te rvinces suld still ave a rle t la. Undubtedl,tere are sinicant cnsumer rtectin issues t address; PMs andRMI sstems raise imrtant questins abut e-cmmerce and cntract-in n and fine. I te ederal vernment is nt interested in leislat-

in in resect tese imrtant tics, te rvinces can and suld.Prvincial Attrne Generals must terere et invlved in tis c-

rit debate. Tis ill braden te base stakelders cntributin t tecnversatin, eull leadin t a ell-reasned and rkable rame-rk t vern PMs and RMI sstems. Tis uld surel be a sitivedevelment rm te ersective crit la rerm. Indeed, tis isne te rimar als Canadian ederalism as ell: “Te advantae a decentralized ederal sstem, ten, is tat it maximizes rtunities

r eective citizen articiatin.”09 I te rvinces ere t et invlved,te ublic d uld be mre strnl elt and abuses uld be less ex-tensive.0

3) taacmm

I te Gvernment’s aracrit rvisins are t be ueld, a strnerarument mit be made based un Parliament’s rade and Cmmerce

er tan its Crits er. Te arementined Parsons case ad-dressed te line beteen Prert and Civil Rits and rade and Cm-merce. Te Priv Cuncil divided te ederal vernment’s rade andCmmerce er int t brances: rst, inter-rvincial r internatin-al trade, and secnd, cmmercial matters aectin te “le dminin.”

Parliament as te sle jurisdictin ver ds, ele, caital, r ser-vices crssin Canadian r rvincial territries r te urse trader cmmerce. But te ederal vernment as n autrit ver intra-r-

vincial trade. Curts ave cnsiderabl restricted Parliament’s abilit treulate lcal trade, even i din s is necessaril incidental t eectivereulatin inter-rvincial r internatinal trade. Parliament can “al-mst never” aect issues suc as te rductin r marketin a rducttru ederal leislatin.

09 Ricard E. Simen, “Criteria r Cice in Federal Sstems” (98-98) 8

Queen’s L.J. at .0 Ibid ., citin Mntesquieu’s vie. Abve nte 06. Mnaan, abve nte 8 at 8. Ibid.




Tis laces a sinicant cnstraint n te ederal vernment en itcmes t enactin rvisins tat urrt t reulate ersns ercircumventin services. Mre enerall, recall tat PMs enrce cn-tracts vernin te sale diital cntent, ic can eiter be embed-

ded in a sical medium r distributed electrnicall via te Internet. Anencrted DVD sld ursuant t certain exress r imlied cnditins isan examle te rmer, a aid dnlad rm te Ale iunes MusicStre an examle te latter.

In terms distributed sical cntent, it is dicult t sa tis isa matter inter-rvincial r internatinal trade. Mst asects tetransactin take lace itin a articular rvince. Electrnic cmmerce,ever, raises nvel questins. Bt te ederal vernment and te

rvinces ave leislated in tis area, altu bt in a eneral manner.Te ederal Personal Inormation Protection and Electronic Documents Act isexressl qualied s as t al nl t electrnic alternatives in resect ederal las. Te Ontario E-Commerce Act, n te ter and, aliesmre bradl. It is resentl unclear a jurisdictinal scufe in tisarea mit be reslved.

As r cmmercial issues aectin te le dminin, General Motors

is a leadin autrit.6 Accrdin t ten-Cie Justice Dicksn, tereare ve criteria r tis secnd branc t al. Fr ederal leislatin tbe a valid exercise te Parliament’s jurisdictin ver te “eneral” tradebranc trade and cmmerce, te act r sectin must be: () art aeneral reulatr sceme; () mnitred b te cntinuin versit areulatr aenc; () cncerned it trade as a le rater tan it aarticular industr; () a nature tat te rvinces jintl r severalluld be cnstitutinall incaable enactin; and () jeardized bte ailure t include ne r mre rvinces r lcalities in a leislativesceme.7 Cie Justice Dicksn als indicated tat tese criteria are ntdeterminative, and tat te main actr t cnsider as eter te issuebein addressed as a natinal ecnmic cncern and “nt just a cllec-tin lcal nes.”8

Personal Inormation Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000, c. , <tt://las.justice.c.ca/en/-8.6/text.tml>.

Electronic Commerce Act, 2000, S.O., c. 7, <.e-las.v.n.ca/DBLas/Statutes/Enlis/00e7_e.tm>.

6 General Motors, abve nte .7 Ibid. at 6–; Vapor Canada, abve nte 0.8 General Motors, abve nte at 66–6




It uld be an uill battle t cnvince an curt tat te matter PMs and RMI sstems aects te le dminin. Aside rm te acttere is n cmlete reulatr sceme, nr an reulatr aenc ver-seein tis issue, tis issue des nt aect trade as a le. It mainl a-

ects te business mdels recrd rducers, mtin icture studis, anda limited number ter entities tat distribute articular tes dii-tal rducts. Mrever, te rvinces ave demnstrated teir abilit treulate ter asects cmmerce, articularl electrnic cmmerce. Teexclusin a articular rvince uld nt jeardize eective reula-tin PMs and RMI sstems.

4) cimialla

Generall seakin, tere are tree indicia valid ederal leislatin inresect Criminal La: tere must be a ribitin certain activit;te ribitin must be accmanied b a enalt r breac; and te lamust be enacted r a “criminal . . . ublic urse,” dened as includ-in “[]ublic eace, rder, securit, ealt, mralit.”9 Crit la inCanada and abrad des incrrate sme criminal sanctins. One mitarue tat te aracrit rvisins culd stand under te Criminal

La er, iven tat tere is clearl a ribitin and tat tere aar-entl are enal cnsequences r breac te ribitin. Te crit,neiburin, r mral rits lder ill be entitled t all remedies cn-erred b la r te inrinement a rit. hever, even te CanadianRecrdin Industr Assciatin, ne te rincial lbbists r tuercrit las, arees tat tis matter is nt and suld nt be abutcriminal la sanctins.0

In te Margarine Reerence, leislatin ribitin dealins in mara-

rine as enacted in rder t rtect te dair industr b bannin rductstat uld cmete it butter. Tis as nt a valid Criminal La urse.Similarl, leislatin rtectin te crit industries as an ecnmicurse reulatin cmmercial dealins beteen rivate arties.

9 Mnaan, abve nte 8 at , citin Reerence re Dairy Industry Act (Canada)

S.5(a), [99] S.C.R. at 0 [ Margarine Reerence].0 Te Assciatin’s resident, Graam hendersn, said n CV’s Canada A.M.

te eek rir t te tablin te rsed leislatin: “Tis isn’t rvidina criminal remed. … It’s a civi l remed. … I dn’t tink anbd uld antt et int te business alin criminal sanctins t 6-ear-lds arednladin music r lm rducts.” <.ctv.ca>.

Abve nte 0.




On te ter and, te Sureme Curt as iven Parliament mucleea it te amrus cncets suc as ealt and mralit underCriminal La. Tis stands in cntrast t te cnstraints it as imsedn te rade and Cmmerce er, r examle. Terere, altu it

uld be intuitivel dicult t see tis as a matter aectin ublic eace,rder, securit, ealt r mralit, te breadt Parliament’s CriminalLa er culd cnceivabl surt te Gvernment’s rsal.

5) pa,o,aggmcaaa

Parliament’s er t leislate r te Peace, Order, and Gd Gvernment Canada (pogg) encmasses at least tree areas: ne matters, emeren-

cies, and issues natinal imrtance. Curts are n ver reluctant tall ederal jurisdictin ver ne matters, as suc matters usuall tucun ter eads er. Desite te cuttin-ede nature smePMs, te emerence ne RMI sstems and te mdern enmenn netrkin, tese are clearl nt “ne matters” r cnstitutinalurses; te can surel be linked t existin eads er.

A curt last alied te emerenc er in te Anti-Infation Reer-

ence. It uld be inalicable ere since Bill C-60’s aracrit rvi-

sins are nt temrar. Mrever, it uld be inarriate t sa tatcircumventin is an emerenc tat arrants te exercise Parliament’spogg ers.

I te underlin rblem addressed b aracrit rvisins ist be cnsidered a matter natinal imrtance, te Gvernment mustmeet te test set in R. v. Crown Zellerbach. Tis means it must ave a“sinleness, distinctiveness and indivisibilit tat clearl distinuises itrm matters rvincial cncern and a scale imact n rvincial

jurisdictin tat is recncilable it te undamental distributin le-islative er under te Cnstitutin.”6 It is dubtul tis issue is a mat-ter natinal imrtance — unless, ever, it culd be sn tat tis

Mnaan, abve nte 8 at , citin cases suc as RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada

(A.G.), [99] S.C.R. 99. Te Sureme Curt last alied tis cncet in R. v. Hauser, [979] S.C.R. 98,

ere te Curt eld tat te Narcotic Control Act as a valid exressin Parliament’s pogg er because it dealt it a enuinel ne rblem.

Reerence re Anti-Infation Act, abve nte 6. R. v. Crown Zellerbach, [988] S.C.R. 0.6 Ibid. at ara. .




branc te pogg er includes te autrit t imlement interna-tinal treaties.

Recall tat te stated urse Bill C-60 is t imlement te wIPOInternet reaties int Canadian dmestic la. An arument culd be made

— altu it as never et been successul — tat Parliament as cn-stitutinal autrit t imlement internatinal treaties, reardless eter te subject matter uld terise all itin rvincial juris-dictin.

It is acceted tat te ederal vernment as te er t make trea-ties n beal Canada, altu neiter te er t make nr teer t imlement an internatinal treat is und in te Constitution

Act, 1867.7 I leislatin is necessar t brin dmestic la int cmli-

ance it a treat, cnstitutinal jurisdictin ver tat leislatin llste divisin leislative ers beteen Parliament and te rvincialleislatures. Lrd Atkin articulated te enerall acceted rule in te La-

bour Conventions case: “tere is n suc tin as treat leislatin as suc.Te distributin is based n classes subjects; and as a treat deals ita articular class subjects s ill te leislative er errmin itbe ascertained.”8

Sme cmmentatrs ave criticized tis statement, and, in Vapor Can-

ada,9 Cie Justice Laskin, revisitin te Labour Conventions case, rtetis:

In m inin, assumin Parliament as er t ass leislatin

imlementin a treat r cnventin in relatin t matters cvered

b te treat r cnventin ic uld terise be r rvincial

leislatin alne, te exercise tat er must be maniested in

te imlementin leislatin and nt be let t inerence. Te Curts

suld be able t sa, n te basis te exressin te leislatin,tat it is imlementin leislatin.

It aears rm te inclusin te rase “in cnrmit it WC andWPP ” tat te Gvernment ma intend t rel n tis exact assae.

In recent ears, sme ave arued tat Cie Justice Laskin’s dictum suests tat Parliament ma be able t imlement internatinal trea-ties, even itin rvincial jurisdictins, as ln as Parliament exressl

7 wit te excetin te “emire treat” rvisin in s. .8 A.G. Canada v. A.G. Ontario, [97] A.C. 6 at .9 Vapor Canada, abve nte 0.




states its ratinale in te leislatin.0 Oter exerts, ever, d nttink curts uld verrule suc a ln-standin decisin, even tu itas rven t be cntrversial. Canada is still able t act eectivel nte internatinal stae. Te cncurrin inin L’heureux-Dubé inTompson v. Tompson, ic exlicitl recnizes tat te imlementa-tin a secic Cnventin as itin te jurisdictin te rvinces,als rvides surt r te existin rule.

Ultimatel, it is unclear eter te Gvernment culd justi its r-sed aracrit rvisins n te basis te WC and WPP alne.Oter tan Cie Justice Laskin’s assin remarks, te case la seemst suest tat Parliament cannt ain cmetence ver a matter underrvincial jurisdictin b imlementin an internatinal treat bliatin

assumed b Canada.

d. concLusIon

Tere are dubts eter Parliament as te autrit t leislate inresect PMs and RMI sstems. In it and substance, tis matterinvlves te tecnlical, cntractual, and cmmercial terms distribu-tin diital materials. Altu tere is a tanential link t te ederal

Crits er, te matter mit mre arriatel be laced itinrvincial autrit ver Prert and Civil Rits. Similarl, altutis is a cmmercial matter, it seems nt t all itin te ederal radeand Cmmerce er and is cnsequentl r te rvinces t deal it.Tis des nt seem like a Criminal La matter, altu tat articularederal dmain as been interreted bradl. It is unclear eter te ed-eral vernment as a eneral treat-imlementatin er tat uld

0 J-M Arbur, Droit International Public, e Ed., (Cansville, QC: Éditins yvnsBlais, 00) at 66; P.w. h, Constitutional Law o Canada, Lselea (rnt:Carsell, 996) at –.

Mnaan, abve nte 8 at 99. Mnaan admits te rule ma andcu Canadaen it cmes t internatinal treat-makin and imlementatin. hever,it culd be said tat tis is ne te rices ederalism, and rvincial au-tnm culd be treatened i ever treat made b te ederal vernment ledt an autmatic increase in te leislative autrit Parliament. See als P.w.h, Constitutional Law o Canada, t ed., (rnt: Carsell, 997) at 00–.

Ibid. Tompson v. Tompson, [99] S.C.R. , <.lexum.umntreal.ca/csc-scc/

en/ub/99/vl/tml/99scr_0.tml> at 6. Gérald A. Beaudin, La Constitution du Canada, d ed., (Mntreal: wilsn &

Laeur, 00) at 77.




justi its rsed leislatin. In eneral, te brader te rsed r-visins, te urter te are rm ederal jurisdictin and te mre tetrenc int rvincial ers. As is, te rsal ma nt be sucientlrecise r interated int an verall valid ederal sceme t be sustained

as necessaril incidental. At minimum, tere are asects tis mattertat all itin te rvincial sere. All tis suests tat rvincial Attrne Generals and ter rvincial lic-makers ut t activelarticiate in te debate.