Blacklock’s Fails in Copyright Litigation Against the Government of Canada – Fair Dealing is Upheld and Even Extended

https://www.blacklocks.ca/ 

The Attorney General of Canada has achieved a clear victory against Blacklock’s Reporter in the latter’s attempt to collect damages of $17,209.10 based upon its supposed institutional subscription rate because a few public servants in the Department of Finance received, read and distributed two Blacklock’s articles about a file they were closely involved in that had been sent to them by a Blacklock’s subscriber.

Here’s the judgment from Justice Robert Barnes – which is unequivocally favourable in terms of fair dealing and even pushes the envelope further by emphasizing that what went on here  was based upon a “legitimate business reason” on the part of the subscriber/sender to the material and a “legitimate business purpose (i.e. to consider whether the stories required a response or correction)” on the part of the Department.

The judgment clearly rejects the essence of Blacklock’s argument, which was tantamount to asserting that copyright includes the exclusive right to “read” copyrighted material. The judgment does not deal directly with copyright misuse or abuse, though it does note certain “troubling” aspects of Blacklock’s business model and mentions the allegation that this “litigation constitutes a form of copyright abuse by a copyright troll.”

[22] To resolve this matter I need only decide whether the conduct Blacklock's impugns is protected under the fair dealing provisions of the Act and, in particular, section 29. Although there are certainly some troubling aspects to Blacklock's business practices it is unnecessary to resolve the Attorney General's allegation that this litigation constitutes a form of copyright abuse by a copyright troll.

(highlight and underline added)

Here are other takeaway quotations from the judgment, which was promptly and decisively delivered by the very experienced Justice Barnes in less than two months from the end of the hearing:

[36] In finding the scope of use of the articles to be fair I have considered the following factors, all of which favour the Defendant’s position:

(a) The articles were legally and appropriately obtained by Ms. Marsden who was a paid subscriber to Blacklock’s. Blacklock’s website was not hacked or accessed by illicit means. In the result, the articles were no longer behind Blacklock’s paywall when the Department obtained them.

 (b) Ms. Marsden sent the articles to Mr. Halley for a legitimate business reason (i.e., to protect her business reputation and to manage her working relationship with the Department);

(c) The Department received the articles unsolicited and used them (i.e., read them) for a legitimate business purpose (i.e., to consider whether the stories required a response or correction);

(d) The articles were circulated among only six Department officials all of whom had a reason to see them;

(e) No commercial advantage was sought or obtained by the Department’s use of the articles nor were they republished in any form;

(f) The two articles represented only a small fraction of the protected news copy on Blacklock’s website and one of them was shortly-after publically exposed on Blacklock’s website;

(g) The articles contained information obtained from the Department in response to Mr. Korski’s queries. As a source, the Department had a direct and immediate interest in their content. Indeed, a finding of copyright infringement against a news source for the simple act of reading the resulting copy is likely to have a chilling effect on the ability of the press to gather information. Such a result cannot be in the public interest;

(h) Mr. Halley and Ms. Rubec had a reasonable basis for their concern that the articles misrepresented some of the information they had conveyed to Mr. Korski and that a correction might be warranted. The involvement of their colleagues in a possible follow-up was, in the circumstances, reasonable;

(i) Neither Ms. Marsden nor the Department were aware of, or agreed to, Blacklock’s Terms and Conditions. In any event and as noted below, those provisions did not unambiguously prohibit the circulation of Blacklock’s copy for personal or non-commercial purposes. If Ms. Marsden, as a subscriber, had the right to use and distribute the articles for a non-commercial purpose, those who received the articles lawfully could reasonably expect to enjoy the same privilege;

(j) What occurred here was no more than the simple act of reading by persons with an immediate interest in the material. The act of reading, by itself, is an exercise that will almost always constitute fair dealing even when it is carried out solely for personal enlightenment or entertainment; and

(k) While the public interest is served by the vigilance of the press, copyright should not be a device that serves to protect the press from accountability for its errors and omissions. The Department had a legitimate interest in reading the articles with a view to holding Blacklock’s to account for its questionable reporting.

 (highlight and underline added)

As to Blacklock’s business model, Justice Barnes explicitly stated that Blacklock’s own argument “is essentially an admission that the market places little value on Blacklock's work-product” and a clear confirmation that, whatever the business model, “it is always subject to the fair dealing rights of third parties”:

[45] Blacklock’s maintains that this case challenges the viability of its business model including its right to protect news copy behind a subscription-based paywall. The suggestion that Blacklock’s business cannot survive in the face of the minor and discrete use that took place here is essentially an admission that the market places little value on Blacklock’s work-product. All subscription-based news agencies suffer from work-product leakage. But to customers who value easy, timely and unfettered access to news that may not be readily available from other sources, the price of a subscription is worth paying. It also goes without saying that whatever business model Blacklock’s employs it is always subject to the fair dealing rights of third parties. To put it another way, Blacklock’s is not entitled to special treatment because its financial interests may be adversely affected by the fair use of its material. Nothing in these reasons should however be taken as an endorsement of arguably blameworthy conduct in the form of unlawful technological breaches of a paywall, misuse of passwords or the widespread exploitation of copyrighted material to obtain a commercial or business advantage.

 (highlight and underline added)

The judgment does not deal directly with TPMs – technical protection measures - or circumvention, despite Blacklock’s efforts. The issue was not pleaded and the Court refused to hear evidence or argument directed to that issue as such.

The Government gets costs, and there is a comment from the Court that “offers to settle may have been exchanged”, which may mean that the Government will be entitled to get “double costs” for some or all of this litigation, depending on the timing and content of any offers.  We shall see and report in due course.

All in all this is a very clear victory for the Attorney General of Canada and for the cause of fair dealing in Canada. A business model “is always subject to the fair dealing rights of third parties.”

Because a fair dealing analysis is essentially based on fact-finding, and because the fact-finding here was extensive and careful, it is would seem that a successful appeal would be an unlikely possibility. I will update in the event that a Notice of Appeal is filed, which would be due on December 12, 2016. It remains to be seen what effect this judgment will have on the many other outstanding Blacklock’s lawsuits against the Government of Canada, some of its agencies and others.

The Government was represented by Alex Kaufman and Orlagh O’Kelly from the Department of Justice. Blacklock’s was represented by Yavar Hameed.

HPK

Further Update on the Blacklock’s “Litany of Litigation” - First Trial Set For September 19, 2016

It is been a while since I’ve updated readers on the “litany of litigation” launched by Blacklock’s. What follows is an update of my earlier postings. See here and here.

Blacklock’s is the very  litigious and controversial “subscription based news Corporation that covers politics, bills and regulations, reports and committees, as well as the Federal Court and Public accounts in Canada”, according to the reasons for judgment dated June 27, 2016 of Justice Denis Gascon in a recent Federal Court ruling dismissing an appeal by Blacklock’s of earlier orders staying all but one of the 10 cases launched in that Court against various federal departments and agencies. One action, (the “Finance Action”) which is the most advanced, will proceed with a trial beginning on Monday, September 19, 2016 for five days here in Ottawa. I’m guessing it will be well attended and I hope that the Court schedules it in a large enough room.  The other nine cases will be stayed “until 45 days following the determination of the Finance Action”.

Justice Gascon’s ruling states:

 [8]   Blacklock alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully distributed its articles within their respective departments or agencies and have breached its copyright after having obtained the articles by way of single-use subscriptions or through third-party sources. According to the Defendants, Blacklock employs a pattern of writing misleading or inaccurate articles about an organization with the expectation that these articles would be accessed and shared internally. Blacklock then makes Access to Information Act requests for evidence of distribution, and claims damages through various means, including litigation.

As they say, none of these allegations have been proven in court.

It is certainly not obvious from a practical or costs standpoint why Blacklock’s would have wanted separate trials on 10 cases against the Federal entities. Alternatively, Blacklock’s wanted to:

"allow all actions to proceed until the pre-trial conference, and only then to consider how to manage the trials."

Perhaps Blacklock’s wanted to pursue each case separately in order to send a message to current and potential defendants that it is serious about litigating and that it expects substantial settlements in order to forestall or stop the litigation. However, that is only my speculation.

Here are Blacklock’s arguments on the appeal of the stay ruling. Here are the arguments of the Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”).

The damage claims in each case are relatively modest as these things go, “ranging from $10,000 to $55,000 when they are specified”. Justice Gascon noted that:

[11]           In her decisions, Prothonotary Tabib acknowledged that the facts of each case are different as both the alleged copyrighted materials and the specific alleged acts of infringement are distinct to each case. However, she stressed that “commonality and similarities” reside in the defences raised in the ten actions. These common defences are: whether Blacklock owns the copyright in the articles alleged to have been infringed; the novel defence of abuse of copyright; the defence of fair dealing when articles are copied/used for internal government reporting purposes; the proper assessment of damages (whether they be loss of profit apportioned per article or the value of an institutional licence); and the availability of punitive damages. Prothonotary Tabib also noted that the amounts claimed in the actions filed by Blacklock are modest, ranging from $10,000 to $55,000 when they are specified. 

From Blacklock’s standpoint, the cost consequences of losing or even winning these cases could conceivably far exceed the upside of winning, given the way the Federal Courts costs rules can work with strategic and timely settlement offers where only modest amounts of money are recovered or recoverable. The most obvious cautionary tale is that of Catherine Leuthold, who sued the CBC for more than $22 million but recovered only US $19,200 damages and $168.74 by way of disgorgement of profits.  While she technically “won” her lawsuit, she was ordered to pay the CBC some $80,000 in costs, which included double costs pursuant to Rule 420, due to her refusal to accept a timely settlement offer of US $ 37,500. The costs order was upheld on appeal.  Needless to say, I have no knowledge of whatever settlement offers may or may not have been made by any party in the Blacklock’s litigation. Even the trial judge will not know about any such offer(s), if they exist, before he or she delivers judgment and will only know afterwards if double costs pursuant to Rule 420 become an issue to be determined by the Trial Judge pursuant to the Rules.  However, all experienced Federal Court litigators are aware of these costs rules. Presumably, the calculations have been done and the bets have been placed, so to speak.

Moreover, Blacklock’s has already faced some significant costs consequences. It lost at first instance with costs payable to each defendant in ten different actions on its efforts to oppose the Government’s stay motion and proceed with separate trials for all ten federal cases, and lost the appeal of Prothonotary Tabib’s ruling of March 3, 2016 before Justice Gascon as noted above. This has resulted in some fairly harsh costs awards as far as these things go against Blacklock’s to date. See here for Justice Gascon’s costs award from August 16,  of 2006 which calls for costs of $10,500 payable within 30 days of the Order and here’s the Court’s Order dated October 26, 2015 which awarded  costs to  the Government of $4,000.  This Order indicates rather strong language and a very significant costs order as far as these things go. Here’s the Court’s Order dated October 26, 2015:

 The motion was contested, it was contested extensively and it took a lot of time. There was a need for cross-examination. In the course of the argument, I made comments to the effect that the Plaintiff’s argument and choice of the way in which it chose to understand questions or construed questions was obtuse to the point of being obstructive. 

Justice Gascon commented on the decision below from Prothonotary Tabib regarding the stay motion: 

[43] In her Orders, Prothonotary Tabib concluded that it was in the interests of justice to stay the Nine Actions given that 1) the issues raised by the various actions significantly overlapped, 2) a stay would avoid costly duplication of judicial and legal resources, 3) a real risk of contradictory decisions existed, 4) Blacklock would not suffer prejudice, and 5) proceeding with the ten actions would cause prejudice to the Defendants. I am of the view that each of these five considerations fall well within the discretion of Prothonotary Tabib and that none of them reflects a reliance on a wrong legal principle or a misapprehension of the facts in granting the stays of proceedings sought by the Defendants.
  [44] In fact, I am convinced that Prothonotary Tabib was right to take these factors into account in her assessment of the interest of justice at stake in this case and in ensuring the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the Nine Actions and the Finance Action.
  [45] First, I agree with the Defendants and Prothonotary Tabib that there is a significant overlap of issues and facts between the Nine Actions and the Finance Action, and that this was a proper consideration to retain. This overlap includes the ownership of copyright by Blacklock, the defences of copyright misuse and fair dealing, as well as the proper assessment of damages and the availability of punitive damages. Blacklock tries to distinguish the Finance Action from the other actions because the distributed articles were obtained from a third party and not through its subscription. However, the Finance Action concerns the same pattern of conduct and core issues as the other actions. In addition, the issue of copyright ownership in the Finance Action relates to the defence of abuse of copyright raised in all actions. Lastly, the assessment of Blacklock’s actual damages and availability of punitive damages is a recurring theme in all actions.
… 

[47] Second, Prothonotary Tabib was not clearly wrong in relying on the avoidance of costly duplication of judicial and legal resources in support of her decisions. The Orders considered the judicial resources that would be saved by the stay, such as a multiplicity of pre-trial conferences and likely procedural motions, and several separate trials resulting in weeks of hearings. Prothonotary Tabib further estimated that even a consolidated trial would require at least three weeks and would delay the determination of even the most advanced actions.

 … 

 [54] I emphasize that there are numerous common legal issues raised by the Defendants in the ten actions. The Defendants rely on the doctrine of abuse of copyright as a basis to justify their assertion that Blacklock’s actions in a given context amount to copyright trolling. While this matter will be ultimately determined on the facts adduced in each specific case as to whether there has been copyright misuse, there are nonetheless common underlying legal issues being raised. Similarly, while the questions relating to damages, the value of Blacklock’s license for its product and the defence of fair dealing are questions where the factual assessment of the evidence will play a role, they raise comparable underlying legal questions that can be determined and that could be narrowed in the Finance Action.

(highlight added) 

Blacklock’s is clearly the underdog in terms of resources. It is apparently a family business up against 10 Federal Government departments or agencies. And, notwithstanding its legal victory in an earlier decision from the Ottawa Small Claims Court in 1395804 Ontario Limited (Blacklock’s Reporter) v Canadian Vintners Association (“CVA”), 2015 CanLII 65885 (ON SCSM), it must frankly be said that it faces an uphill battle in the Federal Court. From what I’ve seen of the pleadings, which are linked to below, the Feds would seem to have a very strong case in many ways, including but not limited to fair dealing. After all, if a government department can’t avail itself of the fair dealing users’ rights provisions in the Copyright Act for the purpose of research into or criticism of what the media are saying about its public policy positions and the law itself, then what is the purpose of s. 29 of the Copyright Act?  Moreover, the Government apparently has a serious case on copyright misuse and abuse. The Government explicitly alleges that “The Plaintiff is a copyright troll”.

Here is the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Defence in T-1391-14, the “Finance” action which has emerged as the lead case. Both of these pleadings are surprisingly brief and general in nature. However, both sides have very able counsel – and hopefully the issues with be dealt with fully and on the merits.

Commentary on Small Claims Court decisions is rare, given that they have no precedential status in higher courts. However, in this case there was a lot of commentary. See, for example the views of Canadian law professor Teresa Scassa here and the redoubtable Mike Masnick on the internationally widely read Techdirt website.  See also other legal commentary that seems mostly negative or deeply sceptical about the decision, e.g. here and here,  here and  here, and a good comment from an IP Osgoode student here. I’m only aware of one commentator who thinks that the Small Claims Court got it right – and she is not a copyright lawyer or expert, as far as I know. See here.

The fact that the Small Claims Court ruling was not appealed likely results from pragmatic considerations.  Moreover, the Canadian Vintners Association presumably has more compelling concerns from its viewpoint than copyright law. Whatever the reason, one can’t fault the Vintners from not appealing this Small Claims Court decision. In any case, the decision not to appeal doesn’t really matter anyway because the Small Claims Court decision – while it got a lot of media attention – has no precedential effect in the Federal Court or the Ontario Superior Court.

Interestingly, I am advised that Blacklock’s has launched at least three actions in the Ontario Superior Court. One of them is being defended by David Fewer, not in his capacity as Director of CIPPIC, but rather in his personal capacity. See the Fillmore Statement of Claim here and the Statement of Defence here. It is not known where these three matters stand and whether there is any serious possibility of future developments that may conflict with the Federal Court decision(s).

Given the apparently litigation-based strategy of the plaintiff on the one hand and the resources and the apparent concern for public policy on the part of the Government, it seems likely that the outcome of the trial set to begin on September 19, 2016 may very well be appealed by one side or the other. That appeal would be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, which is normally very receptive to helpful interventions.

I agree with Prof. Teresa Scassa that this is an important case to watch this fall.

HPK

Copyright Trolling in Canada: Is Blacklock’s a Copyright Troll & "Frequent Flyer" Litigator?

(Wikemedia)

A recent decision from the Ottawa Small Claims Court in 1395804 Ontario Limited (Blacklock’s Reporter) v Canadian Vintners Association (“CVA”), 2015 CanLII 65885 (ON SCSM) is raising some notable eyebrows, for example with  Canadian law professor Teresa Scassa here and the redoubtable @glynmoody on the internationally widely read Techdirt website.

The decision deals with the issues of whether a person without an account to a pay-walled website who receives a “teaser” by email from the website publisher about an article of potential concern to that person or his/her organization and who requests a copy of the work in question from that website from a third party who does have an account is infringing copyright, circumventing a Technical Protection Measure (“TPM”) and can invoke a fair dealing defence in these circumstances. There was also a claim for inducing breach of contract and punitive damages.  The Court came down heavily on the defendants on all issues. The Court found that the defendants were liable for the cost of an institutional subscription in the amount of$11,470 plus punitive damages of $2,000 plus costs.

A few points must be made at the outset:

-          Decisions of the Ontario Small Claims Court, even if correctly decided, have minimal, if any,  precedential status  – other than perhaps in a limited sense of “comity” or “collegiality” amongst other small claims court judges in Ontario. Under the doctrine of “stare decisis”, courts are bound to follow decisions of higher courts to which their decision could be appealed. So, the Federal Court, the Copyright Board and even the Ontario Superior Court are clearly not bound by a decision of an Ontario Small Claims Court.

-          In any event, and with all due respect to the clearly well-intentioned and lengthy reasons of the Deputy Judge (who is not an actual “Judge” but a lawyer who serves part-time as Deputy Judge in the Small Claims Court) who wrote the decision, there are many reasons to doubt that this particular decision was correctly decided in all or even any material respects. It’s arguably an unwarranted and unprecedented stretch of the law to conflate either asking someone for a copy or providing someone with a copy with illegal “circumvention” of a TPM just because the work is behind a paywall.  It’s not even clear that the Blacklock’s paywall constituted a TPM, as defined in the Copyright Act or that there was any circumvention, as defined, in this instance or that any of the activity alleged was prohibited by the legislation. Above all, as Prof. Scassa states succinctly here, “Receiving and reading a copy of an article sent by another person is not per se copyright infringement.” Her conclusion is that “This decision is so entirely lacking in the balance mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada that one can only hope it is nothing more than a strange outlier.”  There are other problems with the decision as well, but I won’t get into them here and now. There’s no need for the moment because it’s a Small Claims Court decision and is of virtually no precedential consequence.

-          In any event, the Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear in the 2004 CCH v. LSUC decision that:

o   “As an integral part of the scheme of copyright law, the s. 29 fair dealing exception is always available.” (para 49)

o   “The availability of a licence is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair.” (para 70)

-          Much else could be said about the problems with the decision, but now is not the time or place. Anyway, once again with all respect, it’s just a Small Claims Court decision.

There have been a number of instances in which small claims court judges have written long decisions in Canadian copyright cases. This is interesting, but ironic – because these decisions don’t really count, for better or for worse. However, this is understandable because these cases are probably much more interesting to these judges than the usual types of cases that are handled in their courts. And given the relative paucity of copyright jurisprudence in Canada, they are clearly trying to be helpful.

An interesting question is why this particular case wasn’t brought in the Federal Court – either as an application or a simplified action. Given the amount of money at stake, it could have been brought in either court. Moreover, the Federal Court has procedures for dealing with applications and “simplified actions” that can be fast and economical, while still allowing for adequate document production, cross-examination or discovery as appropriate in advance of a hearing.

Indeed, Blacklock’s has brought several other cases in the Federal Court. Here are 10 cases filed since mid-2014, mostly against the Federal Government or its agencies and a couple of NGOs:

Court Number	Style of Cause	Nature of Proceeding	'RE'
T-1234-15	1395804 ONTARIO LTD. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA	Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]	RE
T-1085-15	1395804 ONTARIO LTD., operation as Blacklock's Reporter v. AGC	Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]	RE
T-897-15	1395804 Ontario LTD. v. Canadian Transportation Agency	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-745-15	1395804 Ontario Ltd, operating as Blacklock's Reporter v. Bank of Canada	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-477-15	1395804 ONTARIO LTD. ET AL v. CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-269-15	1395804 ONTARIO LTD. ET AL v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA	Admiralty - Damage (Property & Facilities)	RE
T-2090-14	1395804 ONTARIO LTD v. CANADA (AG)	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-1674-14	1395804 ONTARIO LTD. v. SIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION ET AL	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-1613-14	1395804 ONTARIO LTD. v. FRIENDS OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE
T-1391-14	139504 ONTARIO LTD., OPERATING AS BLACKLOCK'S REPORTER v. AGC	Copyright Infringement [Actions]	RE

Some of these have been discontinued, which may – though does not necessarily - mean that there was a settlement. However, the cases against the Government are being apparently vigorously defended – and some interesting defences are emerging.

It appears, on the basis of the Government of Canada's amended pleading (see below), that it is going to fight these cases on the basis, inter alia, that Blacklock’s is allegedly a “copyright troll”, uses “teaser emails that are designed to interest the department in reading and distributing the Plaintiff’s articles”, engages in “speculative invoicing” and is engaged in copyright “misuse”.  The Government of Canada has just won a clear and convincing procedural victory on a motion to amend its statement of defence to plead along these lines – along with a costs order of $4,000 against Blacklock’s on a procedural motion and a comment from the Court that:

The motion was contested, it was contested extensively and it took a lot of time. There was a need for cross-examination. In the course of the argument, I made comments to the effect that the Plaintiff’s argument and choice of the way in which it chose to understand questions or construed questions was obtuse to the point of being obstructive.

This is harsh language and a very significant costs order as far as these things go. Here’s the Court’s Order dated October 26, 2015.

Here is the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Defence in T-1391-14. This seems to emerging as the lead case.

Blacklock’s appears to have become one of the most "frequent flyers", as it were, in Canadian copyright litigation in the short time of just over one year. I cannot recall any single party bringing ten lawsuits in the Federal Court in just over one year.

For those who are unfamiliar, Blacklock’s is a relatively new online high priced media service ($157 for a personal subscription and $11, 470 for an institutional one) that, according to itself, “…covers news you won’t find anywhere else: bills and regulations; reports and committees; Federal Court and public accounts. We’re the only reporter-owned and operated newsroom in Ottawa that finds the facts needed by business, labour and associations.”

I have been interviewed by Blacklock’s on at least one occasion. I must say that I will now become rather reluctant to be interviewed again by Blacklock’s again, if the allegations in the Federal Government’s amended statement of defence are true.

The business model of a subscription based media service with a narrow and relatively small audience with a timely need to know is a tricky one. It has been practiced to a high level of apparent success and respect by the family owned Hill Times organization in Ottawa, since 1989, for a mostly Ottawa-centric  audience of “Cabinet ministers, MPs, Senators, political staffers, lobbyists, 'backroomers,' political junkies, and some of the top decision-makers in the country, including influential players in Parliament, Cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council, the Finance Department, Treasury Board, the Department of National Defence, the Justice Department, and more.”

The Hill Times organization seems to know how to successfully balance paper and online publication and free and pay-walled material.  I’m not aware of the Hill Times ever having sued anyone for copyright infringement.  I’m always happy to be interviewed by and occasionally write for the Hill Times and its various specialized offshoots such as the Wire Report or Embassy News.  Nor have I ever heard of large media organizations such as The Economist or the New York Times ever suing anyone for sharing the occasional article that is behind a paywall.

Speaking generally and not about this or any other particular case, suing one’s customers – or potential customers – is rarely a good business model, whether it be for deterrence or, worse still, as a source of revenue or a business model. Ask the RIAA how their campaign against a 12 year old child, a 71 year old grandfather and a dead grandmother worked out. Likewise, and again speaking generally and not about this or any other particular case, there have been recent examples in the USA and UK where some “troll” litigation has backfired badly.

Needless to say, if any of these Blacklock’s Federal Court cases result in a judgment, this would be something worthy of notice because it would potentially have significant precedential value.

If CVA appeals the Small Claims Court decision, things could get very interesting. The appeal would go the Ontario Divisional Court, which, as copyright lawyers should know, delivered an excellent pro-fair dealing ruling in 1997 in the Allen v. Toronto Star case involving the reproduction on the front page of a Toronto Star edition with a major article about Sheila Copps of a whole magazine cover from Saturday Night Magazine featuring a picture of Sheila Copps. It’s not clear that it would be cost beneficial for CVA to appeal the current decision, even if they win. But if it does, it’s reasonable to expect some interest on the part of potential interveners – on both sides of the fence. A decision of the Ontario Divisional Court is one that could indeed have some precedential value.

In any event, interested eyes are – or should be - on the Federal Court cases. If anyone becomes aware of any other Blacklock’s litigation or threatening letters, please feel free to let me know and pass along details, anonymously if you so wish.

Anyway, speaking of alleged copyright trolls, the hearing of Teksavvy’s quest in the Voltage case to appeal the  decision by Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch of the Federal Court regarding TekSavvy’s claim to entitlement to $346,480.68 in which Teksavvy was awarded only $21,557.50 – about 6% of what it asked for overall coming up on November 9, 2015. Although CIPPIC is no longer active in this matter, it would be helpful if CIPPIC would update its website regarding this case soon and post the most pertinent of the obviously voluminous material filed in the Court so that folks who may wish to follow or attend the hearing on November 9, 2015 can be better informed.

More to follow without doubt on both Blacklock’s and Teksavvy soon.

HPK