The ongoing financial tug-of-war between large tech/social media platforms and news media outlets, with governments trying to play a mediator/arbitrator role, has taken another turn with the announcement that California has cut a deal with Google, similar in principle to the one reached in Canada at the end of last year. When Google was fighting being subjected to regulation in Canada under the Online News Act, Bill C-18, it was glancing over its shoulder at impending developments on its own home turf, California. The California Journalism Preservation Act would have instituted a regime similar to that originally proposed in both Australia and Canada by requiring Google to negotiate agreements with news content providers, compensating them for Google’s use of news content links.
The California bill is similar to draft US federal legislation introduced, but not adopted, in the 2022 session of the US Congress. That legislation would have given news media enterprises an exemption from anti-trust laws allowing them to negotiate jointly with the tech platforms while specifying requirements regarding the negotiations, including arbitration in certain circumstances. (That draft US federal legislation made it difficult for Google to enlist the support of the US Government in opposing similar legislation in Canada, as I wrote about here). Google didn’t like the draft legislation in the US one bit and employed various measures to try to stop it. In California it threatened to drop news from Search, (as it did in Canada) and, similar to its tactics in Canada, it trialed blocking links to news sites for some users.
As most readers will know, and as I have written about on several occasions, Google played hardball in Australiaand Canada, but in the end came to an accommodation of sorts. In Australia it reached unspecified content deals with the majority of Australian media players. In Canada, in return for avoiding designation under the Online News Act, Google agreed to contribute CAD $100 million (about US$75 million) annually to a journalism fund to support news media outlets, both print and broadcast. While the result was not what the government or the news media had originally expected, it was certainly better than nothing. It was not all “new money”, however, as Google had previously signed some voluntary content deals in a vain attempt to head off the legislation. This pre-existing funding will now be rolled into the $100 million fund. The voluntary deals will be wound up, thus putting an effective cap on Google’s contribution. Its tactics in Canada demonstrate that Google will do just about anything to avoid being made to share revenues for linking to the content of others, seeing this as an existential threat to its business and operating model. The same applies in California.
In return for withdrawal of California’s original legislation—which would have subjected links to compensation—Google has agreed to ante up approximately US$55 million over 5 years to be put into a fund to be managed by the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, contingent on the California legislature also contributing $70 million to the fund over the same period of time. That outcome is by no means guaranteed as the funding must be approved by the state legislature each year. In addition, according to the New York Times, Google has undertaken to provide approximately $60 million over 5 years to an AI Innovation Accelerator Fund, plus maintaining its existing $10 million annual support payments for journalism. That is pretty small change for Google. California’s population, at roughly 39 million, is almost exactly the same as that of Canada although California’s GDP is roughly twice as large. Taking that into consideration, maybe Canada did not fare so badly in getting Google to contribute $100 million (CAD) annually.
While Google and the California legislators who brokered the deal were touting its benefits, it received a mixed reaction from some publishers and outright condemnation from unions representing journalists and staff working at news outlets, who called it a “shakedown”. Meanwhile, Meta (Facebook) appears to have walked away scot-free. Meta was one of the targets of the original California legislation, as it was in Australia and Canada. Meta has claimed it gets no value from news links and in Canada “complied” with the Online News Act by blocking news links, thus eliminating any obligation to pay for news content. The result has been perverse, with non-news outlets, like a garbage disposal company in Saskatchewan being allowed to post news to Facebook because technically it is not a news provider, while legitimate professional journalism outlets are blocked. While Meta initially reached some content deals in Australia after its blockage of news content blew up in its face, it is now busy terminating them as renewals come up. The Australian government will have to decide whether to bite its tongue and do nothing or call Meta’s bluff. If they do, there is every likelihood that Meta will block news for Australian users as it has done in Canada.
There are still voices in California calling for ways to “encourage” Meta to make a financial contribution to news media, and the Google offer is not a completely “done deal” although it has support from the Governor of the state. With the California domino having fallen, government attempts to bring Google to heel seem to have sputtered out, at least for now. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act in the US Congress appears unlikely to go anywhere. The UK is still trying to figure out its approach, as MediaPolicy.ca reported last week. Google and Meta appear to have successfully stared down sovereign governments at the national and state level. While Meta appears to have completely closed its wallet, Google has negotiated payments it can live with as part of the cost of doing business. And given the scale of its business, the amounts it is throwing on the table are exactly that, a business cost that is a small price to pay for its dominant quasi-monopolistic grip on the online advertising market which, at its most basic level, is a vehicle to provide access to content generated by others.
A couple of weeks ago I provided my interpretation of the results of the recent Federal Court case, Blacklock’s Reporter v Attorney General of Canada. My main objective was to call out the twisting of that decision by those claiming the result means that fair dealing trumps the protection provided under the Copyright Act to TPMs (Technological Protection Measures, aka “digital locks”). In other words, debunking the assertion that as a result of this decision, it is legal for a user to bypass or circumvent an access control TPM in order purportedly to exercise their rights under fair dealing. As I explained, the court did not so rule for the simple reason that it concluded that the user, a Parks Canada employee, did not circumvent the TPM because she had obtained access licitly through purchase of a subscription. The issue at bar was that the password thus obtained was then shared with a couple of dozen or so other employees of Parks Canada and other Canadian government departments for “research”, an identified fair dealing purpose.
The judge concluded that the terms of the subscription were sufficiently ambiguous to permit the interpretation that sharing the password was not an infringement, and thus did not constitute circumvention. He was also unwilling to conclude that a password constitutes a TPM, absent expert testimony. He then went on to assess whether the use fell within the four corners of fair dealing, concluding that it did both in terms of purpose and form of use. As controversial as this decision may have been in terms of determining that sharing a licitly-obtained password granted for a single subscription was not an infringement because the end use was fair, as well as failing to accept that a password authorized by the copyright owner that controls access to content is not a TPM, the decision nonetheless did not legitimize the circumvention of a TPM on the basis of fair dealing. Thus, I concluded the Court had upheld the principle that fair dealing does not trump a TPM, or, put another way, the Court did not overturn that principle.
Then, noted copyright lawyer Barry Sookman weighed into the debate, posting his views on the decision, “Understanding subscription licenses, fair dealing and legal protection for TPMs in Canada: A critical commentary of the Blacklock’s Reporter Parks Canada decision”. Sookman’s legal deep dive into the case is a much more detailed analysis than my own although he also concludes that, among other things, the decision did not rule that fair dealing trumps the Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention prohibition regarding TPMs. He also disputes the Court’s fair dealing analysis, concluding that since access was not licitly obtained, there can be no fair dealing. According to his analysis, it was not obtained legally because there was breach of contract. Based on his review of contract law and precedents, Sookman concludes (unlike the decision reached by the judge in the case), that Blacklock’s Terms of Service were binding on Parks Canada. You can read his arguments for yourself.
One sure way to know how persuasive these points are would be for Blacklock’s to appeal the case, although this seems unlikely unless a source of funding appears. As Blacklock’s noted in a posting shortly after the decision was announced,
“We are a small business like a million others. We have spent eight years and $538,665 fighting the Attorney General and Federal Court to uphold property rights. FC 829 should be appealed to the Supreme Court, but large corporations and trade associations relying on electronic commerce cannot leave it to Blacklock’s alone to litigate the definition of “password” in Canada in the digital age. Parties interested in joining an appeal with financing should contact counsel: Scott Miller, c/o MBM Intellectual Property Law. 275 Slater Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa K1P 5H9.”
Will anyone step forward? The Attorney General for Canada has deep taxpayer-funded pockets. Blacklock’s does not. This is David v Goliath.
Sookman’s analysis suggests there are solid grounds for an appeal, but to me the most important element of his blog post relates to policy direction rather than legal arguments. He concluded his analysis by noting the discrepancy between the Government of Canada’s aggressive pursuit of Blacklock’s and its professed support for Canadian journalism. The government, through the Attorney General of Canada (AGC, i.e. the Department of Justice), not only very aggressively defended the suits Blacklock’s brought against government departments but went beyond a defence, seeking a declaration from the Court that a password is not a TPM and that its use does not constitute circumvention, in effect seeking to gut the TPM provisions of the Act. (The Court declined to make such a declaration). Moreover, when Blacklock’s tried to discontinue the action, the government continued to pursue the case, instituting a motion seeking declaratory relief that the Agency did not breach Blacklock’s Terms of Service or infringe copyright based on a fair dealing defence.
This is the same government that constantly speaks of the need to maintain a viable media sector and which has undertaken several initiatives with the declared intent of doing so. Perhaps the most visible, and possibly most controversial, is the Online News Act, Bill C-18, that sought to impose an obligation on large US-based social media platforms, to wit Google and Meta (Facebook/Instagram), to negotiate good faith content sharing agreements with Canadian media for the platforms’ use of news content, failing which the government would impose binding arbitration. Most people are familiar with the decidedly mixed outcome of that exercise, with Meta “complying” with the legislation by blocking links to Canadian news content on its sites while Google agreed to contribute $100 million annually to media in Canada, to be disbursed through a hastily formed entity, the Canadian Journalism Collective. The funding subsumes Google’s earlier voluntary licensing agreements with some media companies. The Collective is expected to dole out about $17,000 annually per working journalist from this fund. Meanwhile news links remain blocked on Facebook and Instagram.
Another government attempt to obtain additional funds comes through a second recently passed piece of legislation, the Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11. The CRTC has taken early action to require an initial “downpayment” from foreign streaming services operating in Canada, part of which will go to support the Independent Local News Fund. Then there are tax credits such as the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit for a QCJO (Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization).
There has been some pushback against financial support for media from governments, streamers, and social media organizations, primarily from a few prominent journalists worried about compromising the independence of the Fourth Estate. See Andrew Coyne’s recent comments(“Please stop helping us: the newspaper bailout is a comprehensive policy failure”) in the Globe and Mail. Although many in the media industry do not agree with his perspective, Coyne has a point. The media, newspapers like the Globe and Mail and National Post, specialized journals like Blacklock’s, recreational publications like the Walrus or Maclean’s, or various other online publications, should be able to stand on their own feet and earn revenue from the valuable content they provide. If that content is not worth paying for in the eyes of consumers, why produce it? But a business model that is based primarily on getting paid by consumers for the content they consume is not viable if media products are free for the taking by anyone claiming “fair dealing”. That is nothing but a licence for piracy.
If you click on the link to the Coyne opinion piece above, unless you have a digital subscription to the Globe, you will run into their paywall. You will be invited to register for a few free articles, but more specifically you will be encouraged to subscribe, with a very attractive initial offering (at the moment, $7.96 a month, before tax) that after a set period of time will revert to the more normal subscription price of about $32 a month. That is how the Globe can afford to pay Coyne and run its business. You can even use the Globe content that you access through your paid subscription for fair dealing purposes, for example by making a copy of a reasonable amount of that content for research, private study etc. However, it you were an employee of a large organization, (like a federal government agency or department for example), and a number of employees of your organization needed access to the Globe to stay current on issues, to track what the public is reading, or to anticipate questions that ministers might be asked, etc., one would normally expect that rather than having just one subscription for members of that organization, there would be an institutional subscription that reflects the true usage of the content. For example, Parks Canada has almost 6000 employees. The federal government in Canada has almost 300,000. A smaller organization, like the Department of Canadian Heritage, (that is spearheading policy initiatives to “save” journalism in Canada) has almost 2000 employees. Some specialized agencies (Copyright Board of Canada, for example) have just a handful. (The Copyright Board has 25). One would expect that an institutional subscription would be tailored to the number of users.
One would not expect that a large government department would purchase exactly one (1!) subscription and freely share it among any employees who might need access to the content, using fair dealing as the pretext. But that is what happened to Blacklock’s Reporter. That is what Department of Justice lawyers, representing Parks Canada, (an agency of the Government of Canada, the same government that is touting its support for professional journalism because of the important role it plays in our democracy) argued was their right to do. Rather than siccing the legal dogs from the Justice Department (representing the Attorney General of Canada) on a news organization like Blacklock’s that investigates and reports on what is going on in Ottawa, the Government of Canada should walk the talk of its policy to support responsible journalism in Canada and pay fairly for the content it uses rather than hiding behind a specious expansive interpretation of fair dealing. The actions of the government are reminiscent of the tactics used by educational institutions in Canada to avoid compensating authors and publishers for widespread copying of content for use in teaching under the guise of “educational fair dealing”.
Not only has the Attorney General taken a hard line on this case, it has also tried to blacken Blacklock’s reputation by accusing it of entrapment and being a copyright troll. Blacklock’s had to resort to Access to Information requests to learn how many government employees had accessed the single subscription they had authorized. The judge in the Blacklock’s case explicitly dismissed these allegations, noting that Blacklock’s had no intent to deceive.
As Barry Sookman concluded in his blog post,
“It is high time the Government decides whether it wants to win its suits with Blacklock’s at all costs and in the process create precedents which undermine news services and other cultural industries in Canada or do the right thing and support Canadian news publishing. A good start would be revisiting its legal argument and if this case is appealed, think about what it is really trying to accomplish.”
There are lots of precedents where the Justice legal dogs have been called off for policy reasons, among them the $20 billion settlement on First Nations child welfare. The Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled that the federal government had chronically underfunded child welfare services on Reserves and ordered restitution. The federal government appealed the Commission’s order for payment and challenged the tribunal’s orders in the Federal Court. The Justice lawyers were prepared to fight to the bitter end. But then political realities intruded and common sense prevailed, the appeal was paused and negotiations leading to the settlement were undertaken. The government’s legal stance was way out of synch with its stated policy positions.
The same is true in this case and it is high time the Government of Canada stopped saying one thing but doing another. It’s time to walk the talk in Ottawa.
Image: Shutterstock (with AI assist: Note AI misspelling)
The sad, slow decline of professional journalism continues. The most recent manifestation of this in Canada is the announcement that the Saltwire Group, publishers of The Chronicle Herald of Halifax and a number of other daily and weekly papers in Atlantic Canada, is on the ropes with $90 million in debt. The Chronicle Herald has been around for 150 years! Post Media has made a buyout offer of $1 million (less than the cost of the average home in Vancouver). This will keep some of the papers publishing, no doubt with significant staff cutbacks and, reportedly, ending of union contracts and termination of company pension plans. But there seems to be little choice; accept the nasty medicine or expire. Post Media will most likely keep a minimal local newsroom and fill the papers with repurposed content from its flagship daily National Post. Local news will suffer. This is a story that is being replicated all over North America.
Meanwhile small, local online news outlets have been hit by Facebook’s blackout of news for Canadian readers as a result of the passage of the Online News Act, Bill C-18. In the case of New Brunswick’s River Valley Sun, according to the CBC, the free-to-readers, ad-supported, all-digital Sun depended on Facebook to reach its audience as well as to obtain local news that could be added to the online journal. The owner is quoted as saying, “…we started basically from scratch, and because Facebook was free it was wonderful”.
That is the flip side of the narrative accusing Facebook of using uncompensated news content, developed at great expense by professional journalists working for media companies, to attract and hold users’ interest thus keeping them on Meta’s sites (Facebook, Instagram) longer to be able to expose them to more ads. Not so wonderful. That is what C-18 was supposed to rectify, along the lines of the News Media Bargaining Code instituted earlier in Australia, requiring the big social media platforms (in this case Google and Meta) to make a contribution to news gathering if they used news content. Failure to do so would result in compulsory and binding arbitration. While Google ducked and weaved, it eventually agreed to put $100 million into a pot to be doled out to various news organizations by the Canadian Journalism Collective as long as it was given an exemption from the legislation, whereas Meta went to the wall and took down news links rather than contribute. The River Valley Sun is collateral damage, although it could possibly tap into the Google funding if it employs any fulltime journalists (a minimum of two is required).
The Online News Act did result in bringing some additional funding to news outlets, large and small, somewhat along the lines of Australia’s initiative through its News Media Bargaining Code (which was not actually invoked because the two platforms ended up striking content deals with most Australian media). However, it is clear that Meta has had buyer’s remorse about its Australian deals because they are busy unwinding those commitments in Oz. It remains to be seen how Australia will deal with this. There have been some suggestions that the Australian government may be looking at options to force Meta to carry news, and then subject them to the Code. Will Meta get a pass—in which case Google could rightly ask why it should comply—or will news also end up being blocked on Facebook and Instagram for Australian users as well as Canadian?
If that happens, consumers will have to find other ways to get access to news that is normally shared on the Facebook platform. Going to the actual websites of news organizations is one good way to do this. What a novel idea! However, many younger consumers won’t do this; if news is on a social media feed, they might read it, but they will not proactively search for it. Facebook also remains an important go-to source for breaking local news related to weather and climate-change events such as flooding and fires. Hosts of Facebook pages distributing information on the local impact of natural disasters have had to resort to workarounds such as posting photos of news articles on Meta or copy-pasting articles into their Facebook page. (Ironically, such actions could possibly constitute violations of copyright whereas posting a link is not). But workarounds are not going to help news outlets like the River Valley Sun.
Perhaps the journal should take a leaf out of the book of Just Bins, a waste recycling firm in Regina, SK, a garbage collection company that seems to have picked up news distribution as a sideline, benefiting from the free online exposure. It does not distribute mainstream media; it creates its own news content that it features on its website, even employing its own drone footage. Because it is not a news site, it is not blocked by Facebook. It has edgily reported on traffic accidents, problems at City Hall, homelessness, and even suicides. In fact, it was voted best online news source in a recent poll taken for the annual “Best of Regina” awards. Not that it takes its journalism role all that seriously—and that is part of the problem—since fact-checking, journalistic ethics and balanced reporting seem to have been put out with the recycling bins. Just Bins has taken the old adage of “garbage in-garbage out” to new heights. This is yet another byproduct of the Facebook ban, a further kick in the shins for reputable journalism. If the River Valley Sun could just sell pizza on the side, maybe they could slip through the Facebook net and post online as Just Bins is doing.
Just Bins is not the only quasi-news source that has managed to squeeze through the Meta news blockage. This week Howard Law’s media blog MediaPolicy.ca reports on the Meta news ban (“The leaky Meta news ban is roiling Canadian journalism”) and highlights a study conducted by researchers at McGill University on the impact of the ban a year after it went into effect. The McGill study notes that many Canadians continue to use Meta as a source of “news” despite the ban. Three-quarters of the Canadian public is apparently unaware of the ban, yet Canadian news outlets have lost 85% of their engagement on Facebook and Instagram and almost one third of local news outlets are now inactive on social media. How this apparent contradiction is possible is explained in part by workarounds such as those referred to above, but also because Meta allows sites that declare themselves to be non-news outlets to continue to post content. Mediapolicy.ca discusses the case of Narcity.com, a “chain of local news and lifestyle websites” that has recently been reinstated on Meta. Narcity was denied government tax credits as a “Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization” (QCJO) because of insufficient first-hand reporting. With this rejection in hand, it then applied to Meta to be reinstated on its platform on the basis that if it didn’t qualify for QCJO credits, it must not be a news provider under the Online News Act, C-18. It’s a clever argument, one that possibly the River Valley Sun could take advantage of.
One can argue that Canada’s attempt to require Google and Meta to enter into good faith negotiations with news providers to license content was either a valiant and imaginative attempt to come to grips with the painful decline of journalism, riding to some extent on what at the time appeared to be the successful coattails of Australia’s initiative, or a colossal miscalculation and poor timing as the platforms decided to draw a line in the sand in case media interests in the US decided to follow suit. Google and Meta will do everything possible to avoid going down that road. If sending a signal to US media interests requires them to call the bluff of the Canadian government, they will do so.
In the end, the results are mixed. Legitimate media in Canada, big and small, will get some help from Google’s contribution, although the amount Google is providing through the Canadian Journalism Collective has to be offset against pre-existing voluntary agreements that both Google and Meta had with some journalistic outlets. The Meta subsidies are now gone, and the previous Google contributions have been folded into the $100 million that Google has agreed to put on the table. Meanwhile, in Regina, Just Bins has found the garbage loophole, serving up its version of trashy journalism and news on Meta, going where bona fide journalists cannot. Sad.
Anyone who has been following this case, Blacklock’s Reporter v Attorney General of Canada, might be scratching their heads about now, saying, “Wait a minute, didn’t I just read the exact opposite somewhere?”. Yes, if you were reading Michael Geist’s blog, that is precisely what you read. On June 1, Dr. Geist jumped in with both feet with his blog “Huge Win for Copyright User Rights in Canada: Federal Court Rules Digital Lock Rules Do Not Trump Fair Dealing”. That is one interpretation of the outcome of this case but, IMHO, there is one heck of a lot of spin and some wishful thinking in that headline. In fact, if you were to listen to the breathless self-congratulatory podcast on Prof. Geist’s blog featuring the lawyers who represented CIPPIC, the “Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic” at the University of Ottawa (of which Dr. Geist was a founder) in their intervention, you would think that Canadian copyright law had suddenly been turned on its head by this decision.
While there has been a lot of commentary from both sides of the copyright divide on this case, I think some additional perspective is needed. Apart from the “huge win” Geist school of thought (picked up by a number of blogs from law firms), there have been comments that this marks the end of password protection in Canada as well as statements claiming that this decision puts Canada in violation of the CUSMA/USMCA. Although there were indeed controversial aspects of the decision relating to passwords and circumvention, it did not invalidate the role of access control TPMs, nor did it violate the CUSMA (which requires remedies be taken against circumvention without authority), nor did it give a blank cheque to password sharing. Let’s dig a bit deeper.
First, we could start with my headline above stating that “Fair dealing does not trump TPMs.” This is admittedly a bit of counter spin but is just as accurate as the headline in Michael Geist’s blog. The Court’s decision does not allow or condone circumvention (i.e. the “trumping” or “overriding”) of a TPM, even if the purpose of the circumvention is to engage in a fair dealing activity. That is because the Court ruled there was no circumvention given the circumstances of the case. As the judge noted,
“In the case at bar, there is no circumvention of a TPM simply because the password was not circumvented: it was properly obtained and used for a legitimate purpose.” (Para 120)
We may disagree with the conclusion that there was no circumvention, but it is important to note that the Court did not sanction circumvention.
First, a quick clarification of what a TPM is. A TPM (Technological Protection Measure), sometimes called a “digital lock” is defined in the Copyright Act, s. 41, as;
“any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation, (a) controls access to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or (b) restricts the doing – with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording – of any act [which only the copyright owner has the right to do or authorize].
The ”or” is important, since this distinguishes between two types of TPM, those that control access to a work (Part a of Section 41), aka “access controls” (which is what we are concerned with in this case), and those that control reproduction or other copyright related activities related to a work (Part b). aka “copy controls”.
Access controls provide the gateway that allows business models to function in the digital environment. You cannot access a work protected by copyright unless you are given the “key”, normally by paying for a subscription. (This is where paywalls and passwords come into the picture). Copy controls (Part b of Section 41) protect a copyright owner’s rights with respect to how the work is used. Those rights include the right to reproduce and distribute the work, but these rights are subject to fair dealing, as are copy controls in both Canada and the US, (fair use in the US case). It is only the circumvention of access controls that is prohibited by law. The Blacklock case was about access controls. (Often copy controls are bundled with access controls, in which case the access control protection prevails).
Because a copy cannot be made for fair dealing purposes unless access is licitly obtained (i.e by not circumventing access controls), it seems reasonable to state, as I have done, that fair dealing does not trump TPMs/digital locks. Content has to be accessed legally in order for fair dealing rights to be exercised. A TPM may be part of that legal access. If a TPM has to be circumvented in order to exercise a fair dealing purpose, that is offside Section 41.1 (1) of the Canadian Copyright Act. The Blacklock’s case does not change this.
The Court was very precise in its language stating that the fair dealing rights of the users, in this case employees of Parks Canada, could be exercised because they had licit access to the content through a licitly obtained password. In other words, there was no hacking, bypassing or decryption of a TPM in order to obtain access to and then subsequently use the content on the basis of fair dealing. At the same time, the Court refrained from ruling on whether or not a password was a TPM. More on this later.
This reaffirmation of protection afforded to a TPM will no doubt disappoint Dr. Geist and others who in the past have argued that it should be legal to bypass a TPM in order to assert fair dealing rights. He has claimed there is a self-described “fair dealing gap” that stops users from accessing content to exercise fair dealing. He has advocated for a “long overdue fair dealing exception for the digital lock rules” and has also called for establishing an exception “to allow for circumvention of a TPM for any lawful purpose”.
There are a few circumstances when it is legal to break a TPM. These are specified in the Copyright Act and include such things as law enforcement and national security; reverse engineering for software compatibility; encryption research; verification as to whether a TPM permits the collection or communication of personal information; security testing of computer systems; accessibility for disabled persons; temporary recordings made by broadcasters for technical reasons; and unlocking cell phones. Fair dealing is not among them.
To grant a legal exception to allow users to bypass a TPM in order to access content for a fair dealing purpose, such as research, would gut the ability of creators to protect content and operate a business model in the digital age. While third parties can use content in accordance with the law, including fair dealing purposes, access must be gained legally. This is just as true in the digital age as it was in the analog world. As one of the lawyers on the Geist podcast himself said, you can’t throw a brick through the window of a bookstore and grab a book just to exercise your fair dealing rights. Nor can you hack a TPM that controls access to a work, whether or not your ultimate purpose is to conduct research. The Blacklock case did not change this. I explained all this in a blog I wrote several years ago (Why Can’t I Legally Pick ‘Digital Locks’ to exercise my Fair Dealing Rights?)
But what about passwords and paywalls? Aren’t they access control TPMs? I would have thought so, and that is what Blacklock’s contended, but it seems that in terms of jurisprudence this may be unclear. A password is certainly a common means to control access, to open the door to protected content once payment or some other form of authorization is given, and is often an integral feature of a TPM. The Attorney General of Canada (AGC), representing Parks Canada, asserted that a password is not a TPM (and thus the use of a password does not constitute circumvention), and asked the Court to so affirm. It did not do so. In the absence of any evidence or expert testimony as to what a TPM is, the Court declined to address the issue. To quote from the decision, (Para 111)
“…the issue raised clearly lacks any evidence of a technical nature…There is no evidence either of what a “password” is and what it was in this case: thus, there was no expert evidence led by either party on what, in this case, constitutes the TPM.”
The Court then went on to a discussion of paywalls and whether a paywall was a TPM, or merely a means of enforcing a TPM. The end result was uncertainty regarding how a TPM (which you will recall is any effective technology, device or component that controls access to a work) is to be defined. The Court also focussed on the word “effective” to dismiss Blacklock’s argument that s. 41 was intended to empower owners to protect their works with any technological tool at their disposal, yet “effective” has been interpreted in CUSMA to simply mean that it cannot be accidentally bypassed. (Article 20.66 FN 72).
Another loose end is the meaning of circumvention. Password sharing, apparently, is not circumvention according to the Court.
Key takeaways:
The absence of expert testimony as to what constitutes a TPM was not helpful to Blacklock’s case. The judge admitted that a password could arguably constitute a TPM (Para 133) but in this case there was a paucity of evidence to allow that determination.
The fact that the password was obtained licitly was also not helpful to Blacklock’s. The password was not circumvented (defined as descrambled, decrypted, or otherwise avoided, bypassed, removed, deactivated or impaired). A subscription had been paid for, and a password provided, albeit shared within the organization-but for a fair dealing purpose.
The terms and conditions under which the subscription was purchased were ambiguous. This case dates back more than a decade. Memories are not precise. No exact replication of the Blacklock’s website at the time the subscription was purchased (2013) is available, having vanished into internet history. Testimony as to what it contained was contradictory and inconclusive. The terms of use were contradictory, allowing circulation of Blacklock’s content for personal and non-commercial use, but then referring to bulk subscriptions. Moreover, the terms and conditions did not require explicit acknowledgement by the user, opening it to claims that the terms may not have been read in full or understood. In short, there were a number of unfortunate loopholes that weakened the case. To use a cricket analogy, the Blacklock’s case was played on a regrettably weak wicket.
The use of the content was, in my view, consistent with fair dealing. It constituted non-commercial research. Of that there can be little doubt. It met the fair dealing test.
All of these elements created a perfect storm of conditions that undermined Blacklock’s case, although the Court specifically rejected the AGC’s low-blow allegation of entrapment and deception by Blacklock’s.
Going forward, the issue of whether a password or paywall is a TPM needs to be clarified. If it is, does unauthorized sharing of a password constitute circumvention? The circumstances of the sharing will certainly be relevant. As the Court stated (Para 125),
“how the password was obtained is significant as this may prevent a user from invoking the fair dealing provisions of the Act. Obtaining content by descrambling a signal or decrypting a communication may render invoking fair dealing very difficult to establish successfully.”
Properly drafted terms and conditions can provide protection against unauthorized sharing of passwords, avoiding a weakness faced by Blacklock’s in this case. The Court also went on record to note that its decision was decided on the evidence presented in this case alone and is not to become a reference at large.
It is legitimate for Blacklock’s to feel cheated by the Court’s ruling that there was no circumvention of a TPM in this case, and I can sympathize with their frustration. At the same time, it is important to note that the Court did not legitimize the circumvention of a TPM for fair dealing purposes. The law remains that a fair dealing purpose does not legitimize the circumvention of a TPM, (or the breaking of a digital lock if you will).
Commentators and analysts are free to take what they wish from any case, emphasizing this or that aspect. Michael Geist and CIPPIC have provided their interpretation, or spin. Now you have an alternate perspective. While the outcome is not what Blacklock’s hoped for, bypassing or circumventing a TPM in the name of fair dealing has not been legitimized. In other words, “Fair Dealing Does Not Trump a TPM”.
