Table of ContentsWhat 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 level of Supreme Court judgments and was decided on July 12, 2012. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal federal because the appellants' Entertainment Software Association requested that the decision in the case be reviewed again by a higher court. They argued that they were not satisfied with the first decision made by the Copyright Board and the Federal Court of Appeal and therefore decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court due to legal issues . The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Copyright Board 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 Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayWhat are the Facts of the Case?The Appellants Entertainment Software Association (collectively ESA) is a partnership of publishers and distributors of video games that allow customers to download copies of video games from the Internet identical to copies sold by the Society of Music Authors, Authors and Publishers (collectively SOCAN) and that customers purchase them in-store or by mail. Their video games contain copyrighted musical works that have become a copyright and intellectual property matter. The question that arose between the parties to the case was whether the video game publishers ESA and SOCAN, who had paid royalties to the copyright owners of the musical works Entertainment Software Association incorporated in their games for reproduction of these works under the Copyright Act, could be required by the Copyright Board to pay additional fees for "communicating" the work to the public by telecommunication under the Copyright law when they sold copies of video games via download over the Internet. The ESA appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that downloading a video game consisting of a musical work does not have the same meaning as communicating the musical work to the public. The plaintiffs in this case are the appellants, the ESA of Canada, as they are the ones who accused SOCAN of re-examining the matter at a higher level given that there was dissatisfaction with the previous decision. The legal harm the ESA will face is that they would have to pay for any legal damage they may have caused to the other company. They will have to pay additional copyright fees for the use of their work in their video without paying the royalties or rates they were previously paying. The legal remedy they are seeking is restitution, as they want the ESA to pay for the rates incorporating their music into their video game under copyright law. SOCAN argued that as copyright owners, they are entitled to compensation for the communication of their work by downloading from the Internet since the rights of reproduction and communication are different rights under the law. The defendants in this caseare the respondents, SOCAN being the party accused by the ESA of being able to communicate musical works on behalf of the copyright owners of the Entertainment Software Association. SOCAN's defense against the plaintiff's claim was that the term "communicate" was not defined in the statute, and it is avoidable for the legislative act to demonstrate that the right to "communicate" is associated with the right to perform an act. work but not the right to reproduce similar copies of it. They argued that downloading a video game incorporating musical works does not mean communicating a musical work to the public.public. The court is made up of 9 judges, two parties and intervenors who had a say in the outcome. This case was a bench trial because it was a trial before the judge in which the final verdict was made by the judge and not the jury. This case was heard in plenary session because it was heard by all the judges of the court rather than by a panel of judges selected by the court. What legal issues does the case raise? The legal question raised in the case is whether the communication of video via the Internet qualifies as "communication" to the public as if it were, then is SOCAN 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 proposed by the court regarding the legal issue is to seek the definition of “communication” and its difference in definition from radio communication and telecommunications. Ultimately, it was decided that "the delivery over the Internet of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works amounted to a communication within the meaning of Article 3(1) should be canceled." 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 assessed the legislative history of act to reach a final decision. The call mainly focused on the word communicate. As noted in the case, there is no clear definition of this word in the law. The Supreme Court reviewed the legal history of the act and concluded that the right to communicate something is linked to the right to perform the work and not to the right to reproduce identical copies of it. The reasoning given by the court is as follows: “the communication of works to the public by telecommunication is a right independent and distinct from the other rights provided for 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 whether or not it is ever perceived . Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 CSC 34, [2012] 2 RCS 231 (p. 47). “The SCC concluded that the delivery over the Internet of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works constitutes a reproduction of the musical works, but does not constitute a communication of the musical works. » Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 CSC 34, [2012] 2 RCS 231 (p. 47). The main legal guideline used by the court was Copyright Act 3(1) which describes the subject matter of the act and is referred to by both parties. The precedents or laws that the court refers to 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..