A Court precedent on password sharing is a “license for piracy,” warns a former assistant deputy trade minister. Hugh Stephens, now vice chair of the Canadian Committee on Pacific Economic Cooperation, called the May 31 ruling on property rights under the Copyright Act “controversial.”
“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,” Stephens wrote in a public commentary on Blacklock’s v. Attorney General.
Stephens said the decision as it stands undermines the commercial viability of news media. The deadline to appeal the ruling expires in seven business days.
“Newspapers like the Globe & 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,” wrote Stephens.
“If that content is not worth paying for in the eyes of consumers, why produce it?” asked Stephens. “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.”
The Federal Court ruling upheld Department of Justice claims that the sharing of passwords without payment or permission was lawful. It came in a Blacklock’s lawsuit against Parks Canada.
Paid Others $282,000
Evidence showed a Parks manager Genevieve Patenaude was caught purchasing a single Blacklock’s password, ignoring website terms and multiple warnings and sharing the password with any co-worker who asked “if you ever need to access any Blacklock’s article.” The judge who wrote the May 31 ruling, Justice Yvan Roy, said the manager obviously made a “mistake.”
“Had Ms. Patenaude been curious enough she would have clicked on the button ‘Terms And Conditions’ and right upfront she would have read the paragraphs,” wrote Justice Roy. Terms stated: “You acknowledge and agree one subscription is allotted per subscriber.”
However Parks Canada had an obvious “significant public interest in reading articles” without paying for usage, said Justice Roy. “This constitutes the simple act of reading by officials with an immediate interest in the articles for business-related reasons,” he said.
Parks Canada and the Department of Environment at the time paid $282,000 to access content by government-approved media. Parks Canada paid Blacklock’s $148 and attempted to conceal the scope of its password sharing under Access To Information.
Vice Chair Stephens said the decision undercut the commercial viability of Canadian media. “It is high time the Government of Canada stopped saying one thing but doing another,” he wrote.
“One would not expect a large government department would purchase exactly one (one!) subscription and freely share it among any employees who might need access to the content,” wrote Stephens, adding: “But that is what happened to Blacklock’s Reporter.”
By Staff 
