A recent Federal Court ruling on password sharing is being criticized as a "licence for piracy" by Hugh Stephens, a former assistant deputy industry minister. Blacklock's Reporter says Stephens, who now serves as vice chair of the Canadian Committee on Pacific Economic Cooperation, expressed concerns that the May 31 decision could have significant negative impacts on the commercial viability of the Canadian media industry."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 the ruling in Blacklock’s v. Attorney General. He described the court's decision as "controversial" and warned that it could undermine the ability of news outlets to generate revenue.The court's ruling upheld the Department of Justice's position that sharing passwords without payment or permission does not violate the Copyright Act. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Blacklock’s Reporter against Parks Canada, in which it was revealed that a Parks Canada manager had purchased a single subscription and shared the password with colleagues, allowing them to access content without paying.Justice Yvan Roy, who issued the ruling, acknowledged that the manager had made a "mistake" by ignoring the website's terms and conditions, which explicitly stated that only one subscription was allotted per subscriber. However, Roy ruled that Parks Canada's sharing of the password constituted "the simple act of reading by officials with an immediate interest in the articles for business-related reasons," and therefore did not violate copyright law.Stephens strongly disagreed with the court's reasoning, arguing that it undermines the fundamental business model of paid journalism. "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," Stephens wrote. "If that content is not worth paying for in the eyes of consumers, why produce it?"Stephens warned that allowing password sharing without compensation threatens the sustainability of Canadian media, which relies on subscription revenue to survive. "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," he wrote.The ruling comes at a time when Parks Canada and the Department of Environment were already paying $282,000 to access content from government-approved media sources, including a mere $148 to Blacklock’s Reporter. Despite this, Parks Canada attempted to conceal the extent of its password sharing under Access to Information requests.With the deadline to appeal the ruling approaching, Stephens urged the government to reconsider its stance on the issue. "It is high time the Government of Canada stopped saying one thing but doing another," he wrote, emphasizing the need for a consistent approach that supports the financial health of the media sector.
A recent Federal Court ruling on password sharing is being criticized as a "licence for piracy" by Hugh Stephens, a former assistant deputy industry minister. Blacklock's Reporter says Stephens, who now serves as vice chair of the Canadian Committee on Pacific Economic Cooperation, expressed concerns that the May 31 decision could have significant negative impacts on the commercial viability of the Canadian media industry."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 the ruling in Blacklock’s v. Attorney General. He described the court's decision as "controversial" and warned that it could undermine the ability of news outlets to generate revenue.The court's ruling upheld the Department of Justice's position that sharing passwords without payment or permission does not violate the Copyright Act. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Blacklock’s Reporter against Parks Canada, in which it was revealed that a Parks Canada manager had purchased a single subscription and shared the password with colleagues, allowing them to access content without paying.Justice Yvan Roy, who issued the ruling, acknowledged that the manager had made a "mistake" by ignoring the website's terms and conditions, which explicitly stated that only one subscription was allotted per subscriber. However, Roy ruled that Parks Canada's sharing of the password constituted "the simple act of reading by officials with an immediate interest in the articles for business-related reasons," and therefore did not violate copyright law.Stephens strongly disagreed with the court's reasoning, arguing that it undermines the fundamental business model of paid journalism. "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," Stephens wrote. "If that content is not worth paying for in the eyes of consumers, why produce it?"Stephens warned that allowing password sharing without compensation threatens the sustainability of Canadian media, which relies on subscription revenue to survive. "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," he wrote.The ruling comes at a time when Parks Canada and the Department of Environment were already paying $282,000 to access content from government-approved media sources, including a mere $148 to Blacklock’s Reporter. Despite this, Parks Canada attempted to conceal the extent of its password sharing under Access to Information requests.With the deadline to appeal the ruling approaching, Stephens urged the government to reconsider its stance on the issue. "It is high time the Government of Canada stopped saying one thing but doing another," he wrote, emphasizing the need for a consistent approach that supports the financial health of the media sector.
