BETWEEN:
Plaintiffs
AD.
BETWEEN: DIS
QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT BETWEEN: PHILLIPE GUILBERT Plaintiff
VS.
and
SAY:
1.
2.
3.
thetermsof the airness hearing(the
I
4.
agaInst Classaction lawsuitsin the United States sametechnologyresultedin a settlement agreement, attached the affidavit of Cindy Cohn asExhibit 4 to Agreement"). The U.S. Settlement Agreementincludesseveral. protectionsgoverningSonyBMG's conductwith ProtectionSoftware"in the future,all of which have explicitly excludedfrom the Canadian Settlement A
G in respectof the y of which is .S. Settlement
5.
consumer to use of "Content deliberately and
6.
The absence theseprotectionsis purportedlyexp of swornby ChristineJ. Prudham, SonyBMG Canada, attached Exhibit "c" to the as Agreement.
by an affidavit Business Affairs of an Settlement
7.
In Paragraph to that affidavit, Ms. Prudhamstates 5 bestof my knowledge,infonnation andbelief, no authorityhascommenced inquiry into SONY B any SONY BMG Canada's of the Software." She use paragraph11 of the affidavit. Ms Prudhamalso su protectionswere agreed by SonyBMG in respo to actionsbasedon "unique US legislation" andthe containedin the U.S. Settlement Agreement.
0 date,andto the government anada concerning similar sentiment in
8.
CIPPICin the pastconsidered filing complaintswith authoritiesto address SonyBMG's conduct. complaintswith a numberof authorities,including
regulatory filing :y Commissioner
andproVIDe ial
'cesauthorities. U.S. Settlement
settlements.
9.
10.
11.
Agreement. 12. Canadians The absence of
comply with the ent. The
proposed Canadian Settlement Agreement potential I BMG's guineapigs.
Canadians Sony
13.
In paragraph10,Ms. Prudhamstates that SonyBM consumer protectionsarew8ITanted because they with Canada's internationalcopyright obligations."
-
not believethe ve incompatible
14.
Ms. Prudhamprovidesno basiswhatsoever this for reason: I am awareof no authorityor court that wo I note that the United Statesis a party to all internati andtreatiesto which Canada alsoa party, and yet is constrained accede theseprotectionsin the U.S. to to
ent, and for good rt this assertion. yrightconvention BMG did not feel ementAgreement. protections"may Ms. is currentlya ] in Canada," settlement approach the to
15.
Also in paragraph10,Ms. Prudhamstates that the prove incompatiblewith forthcomingfederalcopyri Prudhamgoeson to argue,in paragraphs to 16, I 12 "legal vacuumaroundTPMs [technological protecti. andthat incoIporatingthe consumer protectionsinto agreement would "amountto adoptingin Canada the 1996WIPO Treatieswithout giving the Canadian opportunity [to] decidewhat its policies will be on WIPO Treaties."
in light of the 1996
16.
Ms. Prudham providesno rationalbasiswhatsoever they are eachwithout merit.
assertions, and
17.
This actiondoesnot involve copyright law. Legal for technologicalprotectionmeasures irrelevantto is
ion (or its absence)
laintiffs' claimsin
actionraises copyright. 18. action settlement of legal claims a "legal vacuum" fu1to Canadians.
19.
"as an aspect of Ms fall underthe l)(a) of the
20.
to this action,this 'a) of the Federal jurisdiction over 'ght." Subedera!Court has ght ... at law relevantto the e Federal Courts
21.
A Commissioner etc.
I