IndexWhat is the origin of the case?What are the facts of the case?What are the legal issues raised by the case?What reasoning does the court use in its decision? What are the consequences of the case? What is the origin of the case? Entertainment software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada is a federal case at the Supreme Court rulings and was decided on July October 12, 2012. The decision was appealed to the federal appeals court because the appellant Entertainment Software Association requested that the decision in the case be reviewed again by a higher court. They argued that they were dissatisfied with the first decision made by the Copyright Board and the Federal Court of Appeal, so they decided to take it to the Supreme Court due to some legal issues. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Copyright Board's decision and the appeal was certified. On judicial review, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Copyright Board's decision. The appeal came from the Federal Court of Appeal but was dismissed with costs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on the topic "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an Original Essay What are the facts of the case? The Appellant Entertainment Software Association (collectively ESA) is a partnership of video game publishers and distributors that allow customers to download copies of video games from the Internet that are identical to copies sold by Society of Composed, Authors and Music Publishers (collectively SOCAN) and customers they buy them in the store or by post. Their video games contain copyrighted musical works that have become a case of copyright and intellectual property. The issue that arose between the litigants was whether the video game publishers ESA and SOCAN, who had paid royalties to the copyright holders of Entertainment Software Association musical works incorporated into their games for reproduction of such works under the Copyright Act , could be required by the Copyright Board to pay additional fees for "communication" of the work to the public via telecommunications under copyright law when selling copies of video games via Internet downloads. ESA appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the act of downloading a video game containing a musical work is not equivalent to communicating the musical work to the public. The plaintiff in this case is the appellants, the ESA of Canada, as they were the party that accused SOCAN of reviewing the case again at a higher level as there was dissatisfaction in the previous decision. The legal damage that ESA will face is that they would have to pay for any legal damages that they might have caused to the other company. They will have to pay additional copyright fees for using their work in their videos without paying previously paid royalties or fees. The legal remedy they are seeking is restitution because they want the ESA to pay the fees for incorporating their music into their video game as copyright law. SOCAN argued that, as copyright owners, they are entitled to compensation for communication of their work via Internet downloads because reproduction and communication rights are different rights under the law. The defendants in the case are the defendants, SOCAN as they were accused by the ESA of having been able to broadcast musical works on behalf of the copyright holders Entertainment Software Association. The defense advanced by the defendant's SOCAN against the plaintiff's claim is that the term "communicate" is not defined in the act, and it is inescapable that the legislative act demonstratesthat the right to “communicate” is associated with the right to perform an activity of the work but not the right to reproduce similar copies. They argued that downloading a video game that incorporated musical works was not communicating musical works to the user. The composition of the court is 9 justices, two parties and intervenors who had a say in the outcome. This case was a bench trial because it was a judge trial where the final verdict was rendered by the judge and not the jury. This case was heard in banc session because the case was heard by all the judges of the court rather than a group of judges selected by the court. What are the legal issues raised by the case? The legal question raised in the case is if the communication of video over the Internet is defined as "communication" to the public as if it were, then SOCAN is entitled to receive royalties for the communication of musical works in ESA video games. The court does not refer to any other legal issue in the case and the final decision offered by the court regarding the legal issue is that they look for the definition of “communication” and its difference in definition compared to radio communication and telecommunications. Ultimately, it was decided that “the provision via the Internet of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works amounted to a communication under Article 3(1) which should be ignored”. Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, [2012] 2 SCR 231 (p. 47). What reasoning does the court use in its decision? The court evaluated the legislative history of the action to reach a final decision. The appeal focused above all on the word communicate. As stated in the lawsuit, there is no clear definition of that word in the act. The Supreme Court examined the judicial history of the act and concluded that the right to communicate something is related to the right to perform the work and not to the right to reproduce identical copies. The Court's reasoning is that “communicating works to the public via telecommunications is an autonomous right distinct from the other rights referred to in art. 3(1) which are included in copyright. It is complete when the communication is received, in this case when the file is downloaded to the user's computer, even if it can only be perceived after transmission, or even if it is never perceived. Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, [2012] 2 SCR 231 (p. 47). “The SCC has concluded that the provision over the Internet of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works constitutes a reproduction of the musical works, but does not amount to a communication of the musical works.” Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, [2012] 2 SCR 231 (p. 47). The main legal guideline used by the court was Copyright Act 3(1) which describes the purpose of the act and is relied upon by both parties. The precedents or rules to which the court refers in its decision are Bishop v. Stevens, SOCAN v. CAIP, Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc.; Compo Co. v. Blue Crest Music Inc. and Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Assn. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (communicated musical works contained in ringtones, members of the public downloading ringtones for their cell phones). What are the consequences of the case? The courts and lower jurisdictions that will be affected by the Court's decision rest with the Copyright Board and the Federal Court of Appeal, which are under the Supreme Court. Yes, there was a dissenting option on the part of the..