1. exhibit ac-1 - statement of case access copyright

7/29/2019 1. Exhibit AC-1 - Statement of Case Access Copyright

1/14

EXHIBIT AC -1

STATEMENT OF CASEACCESS COPYRIGHT


2/14

EXHIBIT AC-1STATEMENT OF CASEACCESS COPYRIGHT

1. This Statement of Case provides a summary of the arguments Access Copyrightwill make in support of the Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff, 2011-2013 (the"Proposed Tariff ') and a brief description of the evidence on which Access Copyright intends torely. In accordance with the Board's Directive on Procedure dated March 16, 2011, thisStatement also provides, at Appendix A, a list of the witnesses Access Copyright will call and anestimate of the anticipated time witnesses will require to present their evidence in chief at thehearing before the Board.I. OVERVIEW2. Access Copyright will submit that the value of the tariff to be certified by theBoard is $26.00 per FTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTE for all other EducationalInstitutions (as those terms are defined in the Proposed Tariff). In support of this valuation,Access Copyright wili present evidence about the reproduction licences it has entered into witha large number of Educational Institutions since January 1, 2011. These licences (the"Benchmark Licences") provide for an annual royalty rate of $26.00 per FTE for Universitiesand $10.00 per FTE for all other Educational Institutions. Access Copyright will assert that theBenchmark Licences are reasonable and appropriate proxies for the licence granted under theProposed Tariff and that the royalties paid under the Benchmark Licences, the term of which isJanuary 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015 (except for the licences with the University of Torontoand University of Western Ontario, which expire on December 31, 2013), are directly indicativeof the fair market value ("FMV") royalty rates for the Proposed Tariff.3. It is also Access Copyright's position that the fair dealing policy (the "Policy")promoted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada ("AUCC") and theAssociation of Canadian Community Colleges ("ACCC") and adopted by many EducationalInstitutions, which purports to characterize as fair dealing amounts of copying essentiallyidentical to that licensed by Access Copyright, is unfair and results in copying that is not fair.Access Copyright asserts that, on the evidence to be filed, the Objectors will not be able to meettheir burden to establish that the Policy and copying being carried out under the Policy are fair.Therefore, any such copying constitutes compensable copying which (for any EducationalInstitution that is not operating under a licence entered into with Access Copyright) is subject tothe tariff to be certified by the Board.II. ACCESS COPYRIGHT AND ITS REPERTOIRE4. Access Copyright is a non-profit corporation whose members consist of nationaland regional organizations that represent authors and publishers of works protected bycopyright, including text and visual works included in publications such as books, magazines,journals and newspapers. Access Copyright's core mandate is to licence and protect individualcopyright owners on a collective basis.


3/14

- 2 -

Exhib it AC-2: Witness Sialemeni of Roanie Levy, Kerrie Duncan andJennifer Lamantia (the "Levy el al Witness Slatemenl").5. Access Copyright administers the reproduction of published materials by issuinglicences, collecting royalties and distributing those royalties to copyright holders. AccessCopyright together with Societe Ouebecoise de Gestion Collective des Droits de Reproduction("Copibec"), Access Copyright's sister rights organization operating in Quebec, are the only twoReproduction Rights Organizations ("RROs") representing the reproduction of literary andvisual artistic works in Canada.

Exhibil AC-2: Levy el al Witness Sialemeni.6. Access Copyright represents those publishers and authors ("AffiliatedRightsholders") that have granted it the right to exercise and manage their reproduction rightsthrough collective licences. Through its bilateral agreements with 31 foreign RROs, AccessCopyright represents the reproduction rights of rightsholders in more than 29 other jurisdictionsaround the world.

Exhibil AC2: Levy el al Wilness Statement.7. In addition, Access Copyright represents the works of rightsholders ("NonAffiliated Rightsholders") who have, by implied agency, authorized Access Copyright to act ontheir behalf. Access Copyright's agency relationshipwith a Non-Affiliated Rightsholder is ratifiedwhen it pays out royalties to such a rightsholder and the rightsholder cashes the cheque orotherwise accepts the payment.

Exhibil AC2: Levy el al Wilness Stalement.8. Access Copyright licenses the reproduction of works on both an exclusions-basisand on an inclusions-basis, depending on whether a print equivalent of the work has beenissued to the public. At this time, the works that are in Access Copyright's repertoire("Repertoire") include:

(a) Any published work in print form or that has a print equivalent (a "Print Work"),that has been issued to the public with the consent or acquiescence of arightsholder that has not been excluded by the rightsholder (licensed on anexclusions-basis); and(b) Any published work that has been issued to the public in digital-only form (a"Born Digital Work") with the consent or acquiescenceof a rightsholder that hasbeen expressly included by the rightsholder (licensed on an inclusions-basis).

Exhibil AC-2: Levy el al Witness Sialement.III. HISTORY OF REPRODUCTION LICENCES IN THE POSTSECONDARY SECTOR1994 THROUGH 20109. Access Copyright had reprographic reproduction licences in place withEducational Institutionscontinuously from 1994 to December 31, 2010.10. Negotiations between Access Copyright and the AUCC resulted in a modellicence in 1994 (ultimately the "2003 AUCC Model Licence"). The AUCC Model Licence


4/14

- 3 -

formed the basis for a similar model licence in 1994 between Access Copyright and memberinstitutions of the ACCC and other public colleges (outside Quebec), (ultimately the "2003Public Col leges Model Licence"). Access Copyright also granted licences to post-secondarytraining and vocational colleges that are not members of the AUCC or ACCC (the "ProprietaryColleges") under a licence that took effect on January 1, 2005 (the "Proprietary CollegesLicence").Exhibit AC2 : Levy et al Witness Statement.

11. Pursuant to the 2003 AUCC Model Licence, the 2003 Public Colleges ModelLicence and subsequent renewals, AUCC and ACCC member institutions paid royalties andreported coursepack usage to Access Copyright continuously from 1994 through to December31, 2010. Pursuant to the Proprietary Colleges Licence, Proprietary Colleges paid royalties andreported coursepack usage from January 1, 2005 through to the same date.Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.

12. The 2003 AUCC Model Licence and the 2003 Public Colleges Model Licence inforce between 1994 and December 31, 2010 covered reprographic (i.e., print) uses only. Theselicences were structured as a flat fee per FTE plus a per page rate for works photocopied foruse in coursepacks. The flat fee covered day-to-day copying, such as for handouts and libraryreserves, which the licensee was not required to report. As of 2007 and thereafter until the 2003AUCC and 2003 Public Colleges Model Licences expired on December 31 , 2010, the annualroyalty was $3.38 per FTE and $0.10 per page for works photocopied for use in coursepacks.Under the Proprietary Colleges Licence, as of 2007 until December 31,2010, the annual royaltyrate was $3.58 per FTE and $0.11 per page for coursepack copying.

Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.13. Access Copyright attempted to negotiate an amended version of the 2003 AUCCModel Licence throughout 2009 and 2010. These negotiations were unsuccessful because,among other things, the AUCC was unwilling to discuss coverage under the licence for digitaluses whereas Access Copyright believed that digital reproduction of the works in its repertoireby Canadian post-secondary educational institutions was widespread. Once it was clear thatnegotiations had failed, Access Copyright filed the Proposed Tariff with the Copyright Board.

Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.IV. LICENCES CURRENTLY IN PLACE14. In January 2012, Access Copyright negotiated licences with the University ofToronto ("U of T") and The University of Western Ontario ("Western"). The licences areeffective from January 1, 2011 to December 31 ,2013, cover both paper and digital copying ofworks in the Repertoire, and effectively mirror the uses authorized under the Proposed Tariff.The U of T and Western licences provide for a royalty rate of $27.50 per FTE studentthroughout the term of the licences, however, pursuant to a "More Favourable Rate" clause,given that the 2012 AUCC Model Licence, discussed below, provides for a royalty of $26.00 perFTE, U of T and Western pay $26.00 per FTE per year.

Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.


5/14

- 4 -

15. In April and May 2012, Access Copyright negotiated model licences for AUCCmembers (the "2012 AUCC Model Licence") and for ACCC members (the "2012 ACCC ModelLicence"). Like the U of T and Western licences, the 2012 AUCC Model Licence and the 2012ACCC Model Licence cover both paper and digital copying of works in the Repertoire and mirrorthe uses authorized under the Proposed Tariff. The annual royalty rates under these ModelLicences are $26.00 per FTE for AUCC member institutions and $10.00 per FTE for ACCCmember institutions. A similar model licence (the "2012 Proprietary Colleges Model Licence"),at an annual royalty rate of $10.00 per FTE, is available for Proprietary Colleges. The 2012AUCC, ACCC and Proprietary Colleges Model Licences cover the period from January 1, 2011to December 31, 2015.Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.

16. 37 AUCC member institutions (including the U of T and Western) have signed alicence with Access Copyright, representing 65% of all AUCC institutions. 36% of all otherEducational Institutions have signed licences with Access Copyright. This group consists of 20ACCC institutions (representing 24% of all ACCC institutions) and 61 Proprietary Colleges(representing 42% of all Proprietary Colleges).Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-12: Post-SecondaryEducational Institution Tariff, 20112013, Valuation Report of Brad Heys("NERA Valuation Report"}.

V. COPYING BEHAVIOUR OF POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS17. Under the Model Licences in place between 1994 and 2010, post-secondaryinstitutions were required to report the number of pages copied and bibliographic information forworks copied for use in paper coursepacks. Institutions are also required to report papercoursepack copying under the terms of the 2012 Model Licences entered into by EducationalInstitutions and under the terms of the Interim Tart!. Access Copyright will file an analysis of thishistorical coursepack reporting which shows that, on average between 2005 and 2010 postsecondary institutions copied 124.8 million compensable pages per year from the Repertoire foruse in paper coursepacks:

(a) AUCC institutions copied an average of 111.8 million compensable pages peryear, the equivalent of 167.1 pages per FTE;b) ACCC member institutions copied an average of 10.7 million compensable pagesper year, the equivalent of 33.9 pages per FTE; andc) Proprietary Colleges copied an average of 2.3 million compensable pages peryear, the equivalent of 42.8 pages per FTE.

Exhibit AC2 : Levy et al Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-5: Circum NetworkInc ., Analysis of the Volume and Nature of the Copying of Published WorksDocumented by the Post-Secondary Coursepack Data Delivered to AccessCopyr ight between 2005 and 2012 ( "Circum Coursepack Data VolumeReport'l18. The majority of coursepack copying is from books, representing between 77%and 79% of total volume from 2005 to 2010. This is followed by journals (ranging between 17%and 20% of the volume), magazines (representing 3% to 4% of volume) and newspapers(accounting for less than 1% of volume).


6/14

- 5 -

Exhibit AC-5: Circum Coursepack Data VolumeReport.

19. There is continuing heavy use of paper coursepacks, however, there has alsobeen in recent years a major move by post-secondary institutions to post digital content onCourse Management Systems ("CMS") and utilize digital copies in other ways.Exhibit AC-3: Mich aelMurphy, Report on Course Management Systems andCopying Ac tivities in High er Education ("CMS and Copying ActIvitiesReport"; Exhibit AC-7: Witness Statement of Greg Nordal ("Nordal WitnessStatement"} ; Exh ibit AC-8 Witness Statement of David Swail ("Swa ilWitness Statement").

20. Access Copyright will provide evidence about CMSs: what they are and whatthey allow users to do. Works uploaded to CMSs are available to students to download at theirconvenience, from any location with access to an internet connection. Based on answers tointerrogatories provided by both AUCC and ACCC institutions, it is apparent that digitaltechnologies facilitate the copying of published works and are widely used across EducationalInstitutions. The posting, emailing, and other dissemination or sharing of content is not generallymonitored or tracked by the institution with respect to copyright permission. No significant,qualitative differences are observed between Model Licensees and non-Model Licensees withrespect to the types of CMS systems used and the types of copies made. Access Copyright willadduce evidence on the number and types of digital copies typically created when works areposted to a CMS site and a secure intranet site.

Exhibit AC-3: MichaelMurplw, CMS and Copying Activities Report.21. While the data available to Access Copyright relating to digital copying is morelimited than the historical paper coursepack reporting that Access Copyright has collected,pursuant to the Board's order of June 6, 2011 and its ruling of October 23, 2012, a number ofACCC institutions that have not entered into a licence with Access Copyright were ordered toanswer certain interrogatories (the "interrogatories in abeyance"). The documentationprovided in response to the interrogatories in abeyance clearly shows that the amount of digitalcopying that is now typically carried out by post-secondary institutions is enormous, far outstripspaper coursepack copying, and is approximately six times greater than paper coursepackcopying. There is no evidence to suggest the copying carried out by AUCC member institutionsis not equally pervasive on a commensurate scale.

Exhibit AC-4: Circum Network lnc., Analysis of the Responses Provided toInterrogatories 71, 105, 106, 107, and 108 in the Context of the PostSecondary EducatIonal Institution Tariff (2011-2013) Proceedings ("CIrcumInterrogatories Analysis Report").22. In addition to the paper coursepack copying and the digital copying reported bypost-secondary institutions, there is also evidence from the answers to the interrogatories inabeyance of the volume of an additional category of previously unknown copying: i.e., day-today copying that was never historically reported to Access Copyright including, for example,copying for handouts in class and library reserves that will be covered by the comprehensivelicence provided by the certified tariff. That volume suggests that Educational Institutions copy261 compensable pages per FTE under the day-to-day copying component of their licence.

Exhibit AC-4: Circum Interrogatories Analysis Report.


7/14

- 6 -

VI. THE AUCC AND ACCC ISSUE THE POLICY23. In the fall of 2012, the AUCC and the ACCC issued "fair dealing" policies settingout their interpretation of fair dealing. (The AUCC and ACCC fair dealing policies, which aresubstantively identical, are referred to herein as the "Policy".) Many AUCC and ACCC memberinstitutions have adopted the Policy.

Exhibit AC2: Levy et al Witness Statement.24. The Policy, with one exception, mirrors the copying permitted under the AccessCopyright Model Licences and the Proposed Tariff. Therefore the Policy effectively subsumesthe copying in respect of which an Access Copyright licence would be required or to which thecertified tariff will apply.

Exhibit AC-2: Levy et al Witness Statement.

VII. THE COPYING BY POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IS UNFAIR25. The Educational Institutions bear the burden to establish that the massiveamount of copying they do is fair. Access Copyright's position is that neither the Policy norcopying under the Policy is fair and, therefore, the copying by the institutions under the Policy iscompensable.26. The goal of the Copyright Act (and the fair dealing exceptions under the Act) is tocreate a balance between the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of worksof the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator. The six factors identified bythe Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence are aimed at determining whether or not thecopying engaged in is consistent with this underlying goal. Here, all of the evidence availablesupports the proposition that, notwithstanding that alternatives to copying are available,Educational Institutions are engaged in non-spontaneous (i.e., purposeful), systematic copyingon a large-scale, copying hundreds of millions of pages per year as paper coursepacks, digitalworks posted to CMSs, handouts and other copying. The copying, which permeates across allinstitutions (licensed and unlicensed) and all genres of works, results in slavish, identical copiesof the originals. Parliament cannot have intended that such copying in such quantities would bepermitted without compensation to creators and publishers.

Exhibit AC4: Circum Interrogatories Analysis Report; Exhibit AC5: CircumCoursepack Data Volume Report; Exhibit AC-7: Nordal Witness Statement;Exhibit AC-8: Swall Witness Statement; Exhibit ACll:PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Access Copyright Market Impact of PostSecondary Fair Dealing Policy ("PwC Market ImpactReport'?

27. Access Copyright's position is that the Objectors will not be able to establish thatany of the six factors established by the Supreme Court of Canada - when applied to thecircumstances here - indicate that the dealing in this case is fair.Exhibit AC-4: Circum Interrogatories Analysis Report; Exhibit AC-5: CircumCoursepack Data Volumes Report; Exhibit ACG: Analysis of a Survey ofAccess Copyright Creator Affil iates in the Context of the Post-SecondaryEducational Insti tution Tariff (2011-2013) Proceedings ("Circum CreatorSurvey Report" }; Exhib it AC-7: Nordal Witness Statement; Exhib it AC8:Swail Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-9: Witness Statement of Don LePan (


8/14

- 7 -

"LePan Witness Statement"); Exhibit AC-fO: Witness Statement of JohnDegen.28. Copies of works in the Repertoire are made available to students, among othermeans, through CMS systems via which works can be downloaded at their convenience, (andare incapable of being monitored given the decentralized nature of the copying). Entire works(e.g., articles, poems and photographs) are copied mechanistically, with no transformative oradded creative input. Whole chapters of books, which can and often do contain an author'scomplete and complex analytical and intellectual analysis on a given topic, are copied. ThePolicy permits copying that competes with and damages the market for the works.

Exhibit AC-3: Michael Murphy CMS and Copying Activities Report; ExhibitAC-6: Circum Creator Survey Report; Exhibit AC-?: Nordal WitnessStatement; Exhibit AC-8: Swail Witness Statement; Exhibit AC-9: LePanWitness Statement; Exhibit ACff: PwC Marketlmpact Report.

29. Access Copyright will adduce the evidence of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP("PwC") regarding the likely adverse effects on the market of the Policy. PwC concludes thatcopying by Educational Institutions in accordancewith the Policy is likely to have the followingimpacts:

(a) Substantial reduction or elimination of the secondary licensing income earned bycopyright holders (publishers and creators);(b) Reduction in primary sales by allowing free creation of content that directly andindirectly competes with content sold by copyright holders;(c) Reduced income to creators will decrease the number of works they produce andreduce the time they spend creating;(d) A fall in revenues coupled with increased uncertainty, will result in a reduction ininvestment made by publishers. Certain areas, such as Canadian content, will beaffected more than others;(e) Some smaller publishers will reduce activity or close operations; and(f) Content diversity will decline as certain niche areas become underserved.

Exhibit AC6: Circum Creator Survey Report; Exhibit AC-ff: PwC MarketImpact Report.30. These impacts would harm both copyright holders and copyright users andhamper Canada's efforts to become a knowledge-based economy.

Exhibit Ac-t t : PwC Marketlmpact Report.


9/14

- 8 -

VIII. THE FMV OF THE PROPOSED TARIFF31. NERA Economic Consulting was asked by Access Copyright to provide anestimate of the value of the licence granted by the Proposed Tariff. The FMV is a measure ofthe royalty rate to which arm's-length partieswould agree in negotiating a licence,where FMV isdefined as:

The highest price available in an open and unrestricted marketbetween informed and prudent parties, acting at arm's length andunder no compuision to act, expressed in terms of cash.Exhibit AC-12: NERA Valuation Report.

32. NERA's estimated FMV royalty rates under the Proposed Tariff are $26.00 perFTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTE for all other Educational Institutions. NERA concludesthat the Benchmark Licences - which consist of (for Universities) the 2012 AUCC ModeiLicence and the U of T and Western Licences; and (for other Educational Institutions), the 2012ACCC Model Licence and the 2012 Proprietary Colleges Model Licence - are reasonableproxies because:

(a) The FMV royalty rates are the actual negotiated royalty rates under theBenchmark Licences.(b) The ratio of the FMV royalty rate for AUCC institutions to that for all otherEducational Institutions is 2.6, which is consistent with the ratio of averagehistorical royalties paid by these two groups to Access Copyright;(c) The Benchmark Licences are substantially similar to the Proposed Tariff , withany differences between the terms of the Benchmark Licences and the ProposedTariff being immaterial to the determination of the FMV royalty rate;(d) The Benchmark Licences are reasonable proxies given assumptions regardingfair dealing;(e) The copying behaviour of the licensees to the Benchmark Licences (the"Licensees") (on an average per FTE basis) is not significantly different from thecopying behaviour of the population of Universities and other EducationalInstitutions to which the Proposed Tariff would apply, and the historical royaltiespaid by the Licensees (on an average per FTE basis) is not significantly differentfrom the royalties paid by the population of Universities and other EducationalInstitutions to which the Proposed Tariff would apply.

Exhibit AC12: NERA Valuation Report; Exhibit AC5: Circum Coursepack Data VolumeReport.33. NERA's conclusion regarding the FMV royalty rates under the Proposed Tariff isreasonable given:

(a) The available information regarding the volume of copying and the per pagevalues supports the estimated FMV royalty rates (in fact, the available datasuggests the estimated FMV royalty rates are conservative); and


10/14

- 9 -

(b) The royalty rates paid by post-secondary educational institutions in otherjurisdictions for reproduction licences.Exhibit AC12: NERA Valuation Report.

IX. CONCLUSION34. The object of copyright is to promote the encouragement and dissemination ofcopyrighted works to aid in fostering future innovation while at the same time providing a justreward to creators. The fair dealing exception ensures there is room for the public domain tofiourish and to permit others to create new works by building on the ideas and informationcontained in existing copyrighted works. In short, copyright law and the fair dealing exceptionare meant to ailow for unlicensed uses of copyrighted works for a transformative or sociallyproductive purpose.35. Access Copyright will submit that the Policy is not supported by the jurisprudenceor legislation and does not further the goals of copyright policy. The Policy and the copyingcarried out under the Policy are manifestly unfair under the six criteria formulated by theSupreme Court of Canada to determine whether the dealing is fair.36. Access Copyright wiil request that the Board, consistent with the analysis ofNERA, certify the tariff at royalty rates of $26.00 per FTE for Universities and $10.00 per FTEfor ail other Educational Institutions.37. Access Copyright reserves the right to rely on any other evidence adducedduring the course of the hearing and, in accordance with the Board's Directive on Procedure, tomodify this Statement during the course of the proceedings as required.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

September 13, 2013

1 J ! & ~ 11.Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLPLawyers fo r Access Copyright


11/14

APPENDIX ATO ACCESS COPYRIGHTEXHIBIT AC-1 (STATEMENT OF CASE)Witness Panel : Roan ie Levy, Executive Director, Access Copyright

i Kerrie Duncan , Director, Operations, Access Copyright: Jennifer Lamantia , Manager, Educat ion Licensing, Access Copyright-_ ----_. --_ -- --__ -_--- --- ---------- -- -------------- -- --------------------- ---------------- ---- -_._ . - .- - -Estimated Time : 3.0 hoursin Chief :.__. _-------_.. .. ._.... -- --------------- --- --- ---- _.. . .. -- ----_.-_. .. ._. .---_.--_. __. .. ---- ----_. -_.. .. .----------------- -List of Exhibits : Exhibit AC-2 WitnessStatement of Roanie Levy, Kerrie Duncan and Jennifer.. . ... .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .l .date,!. . r n b E J ..1 . ? 9 . ~ ....................... ~ f ~ . I . ~ ~ ~ . ~ y y .: AC2B Cumcuium Vitae of Kerrie Duncan.. . .. --- ------- ----- -', ---------_._. _ ---- - --_ -_----_ _----------_ -_------_ _ ---_.------_ ---.......... ...........-i.. ' ~ : 2 . f !J!!q!1'L1lJ1 ."!!('!I!.91. !l.ifer. ' ! m . t i C l .......................j.. ~ .Pa!entL ~ m . ~ < l r y . e t t E J r ~ ya tent.a.nd. . a ~ ~ ... . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. ~ List.of.rv1e.m.ber Q ~ g C l .. .... .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . A ~ . ' ! < l ! i ~ . ~ . p . . 9 r ~ E J r n ~ . I ! ! ~ . ' ! ~ . ' ! .. . . . . ... . .. .... . . . . . . . ~ G ~ ! \ ~ . Q . C . ~ m . E J n t .: CONFIDENTIAL List of Affiliates.. .. . . .. . .. . . . . ... .. .. A ~ .: AC-21 List of RROs-------- --- --- ---_ _--- _ _--- -- -- - --- - -- -- ------- - -- - -- -. - ---- - -- - -- - -.. --- -- --- .: AC-2J Sampleof Agreements with Foreign Reproduction Rights.. . ....... . . . ... . .....l . , ! ~ ! z C l t i ........ . . .. . ...... .. .. f Q ~ ~ ! r ! ' J o . ~ : p . . f f ~ ~ a t e ~ ?QJ .0:?012 .: AC-2L 2003AUCCModel Licence_.- _.. ._----_. _. _.. . ' , _-. - - -. _ _. --------- --------- -- ---- -- ---------- -------------------- ------------ -- ------. _. _-----.. .. .. .. . .. .... . .. .. ..1. ~ : 2 . M 2 W .,:,.ubli.c . .ModEJ I. . < e e : ... .. .. .. .. . ... . . . .. ... A ~ !\LJ.G.C. . n s ! ~ ! l . r . e e ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . ~ : ? O !\G.9Q.. m .. . ...... .. .. . .... . . . . . .Af :2O p ' ~ ~ p ' r j ~ . t C l .. ....... . .. . .. ....... . . p ' ~ : 2 . i y ~ ~ s i ()f!o!on tCl. ..... . . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . . p ' ~ : R ~ n j v E J r s i ( ) f . l I I . ' .9.n!a!io. E ! n c ~ .. ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . A ~ S ~ ~ . ( ) U ~ ! ~ . E J e ! ! 1 ...... ... .. .. . ...... .. . ~ ~ Y E J ~ s ()f l I I . ' ~ s n ~ g . e n ! ... . .... .. .. . . . ... . . . . . ~ U 2.QJ .? ~ ~ ~ (M!!'. ~ e r s i o n .. ....... . ..... ....... . ~ 2.QJ? ~ ~ i c e n c e (F'il1


12/14

- 2 -

Witness Panel Roanie Levy, Executive Director, Access CopyrightKerrie Duncan, Director, Operations, Access CopyrightJennifer Lamantia, Manager, Education Licensing, Access Copyright

. . . A ~ ~ ~ J. h '?! @ ~ t h < l . ~ t 1 a y ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ . , " ! ~ ~ .

.. . .. ........... . . . . . . . ~ : ? . F L ~ o . d e l L ! c ~ . l ) c ~ .

............. . . . . . . . . . . G ~ ! ~ ~ r f r o R r i . ~ ~ ~ r y C ; o l l . e g ~ ~ .

........... .... . ... .. . . ~ . I : l hist.'?t.Pr()pr!et


13/14

Witness

- 3 -

i Benoit Gauthier, President, CircumNetwork Inc.__ ______ _____________.:__p J ) e . ~ ~ ! ~ ~ F ' - ? ( ~ ( ) d e . _1 ________________________A.1lj)e.nd_ix_E3 ~ F ' - S _ S _Pr()ce.ss)ng _C()de. ______________________-1 A ~ ~ F ' - ? : 3 P r ( ) r , : e . _C()de._ _______________________ A Q ~ S __: : ( ) ~ e .


14/14

Witness

- 4 -

Don LePan, President and CEO, Broadview PressEstimated Time 0.5 hoursin Chief.. ... . . ._--------- ---- --- ---- . __ --- ---- -- -- ------ - -- - ----- -------- - -- ----- - ------- -- ----- - - - - -.-- - -- ---- - -List of Exhibits iWitness Statement of Don LePan, dated September 11, 2013

Exhibi t AC-9

Witness i John Degen, The Canadian Writers' Union.. .. .. . ---- ---- ------- } ------ -----. _..... ------- ----. ------ --------------- --- ------------- ------ ---- ---_------- . --_.. .. ----Estimated Time : 1.0 hourin Chief :_.. .__----_.. _. ... -" --- ------ ------- -- -- -- -"--------------- -.. _. . .-----------.. ---------------- ------ --------- ---- -- .C? ! . .. .E

1. exhibit ac-1 - statement of case access copyright

Documents