By: Alain Pineau
Dear Paul,
I am happy you find our title inapt and not inept! We wanted to refer to the Court's philosophy more than who really benefits, but your point is well taken. We pointed to the fact that the Court was heavily divided, and while I am not a lawyer, I see a glimmer of hope in this for the people SOCAN represents, after another round of costly litigation: am I right? By: Paul Spurgeon
The title of your piece is inapt. Consumers will not benefit from this decision. The benefit will flow to the giant tech and communications corporations that will no longer have to pay creators (3.1 cents per tune)for the rights that they convinced the Court do not exist. The Court was not unanimous (5 to 4). Based on the dissenting opinion, the Court appears to have been deeply divided. By: Alain Pineau
Hi Peter ,
it is indeed a complex legal issue to understand first and try to explain second! We will likely come back on this in the coming months and will try to make the significance of these judgments more tangible.
Thank you for the comment.
a. By: Peter Hyde
Very interesting and well reported, but I am still somewhat confused. It is perhaps because I am not in the communications industry. Looks like a complicated matter intelligible mainly by people in that field.