A federal copyright case involving Blacklock’s Reporter and the unauthorized sharing of its paywalled content by government employees could have wide-reaching implications for publishers across Canada, according to an internal memo to the heritage minister.The April 3 briefing, titled Copyright Issues Raised In Blacklock’s Reporter v. Canada, warned Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault that the case could create uncertainty for rights holders and undermine confidence in passwords as a tool to protect digital content. “This decision may create uncertainty among rights holders and users,” the memo said. “Officials are monitoring.”Blacklock’s is appealing a 2024 Federal Court decision that allowed a Parks Canada manager, Genevieve Patenaude, to share her $148 subscription password with at least nine coworkers despite repeated warnings. The court found Patenaude acted improperly but ruled the department had a valid business interest in accessing the material without paying additional licensing fees..Blacklock’s called the password sharing a violation of the Copyright Act and warned the ruling undermines the viability of independent, unsubsidized media. Parks Canada and Environment Canada spent more than $282,000 a year on subscriptions to other outlets but refused to pay for multiple Blacklock’s licences. A hearing on the appeal is scheduled for October 6.The internal memo said the case could affect all paywalled platforms, from news outlets to streaming and gaming services. “The use of passwords to limit access to copyright protected content is a common business practice among online platforms,” it read. “Rights holders may be concerned that passwords and paywalls are no longer seen as effective technological protection measures.”.Critics outside government have also raised alarm. Howard Law, former media director at Unifor, called the case a “vindictive abuse of state power” and noted Blacklock’s often challenges federal departments in its reporting. Hugh Stephens of the Canadian Committee on Pacific Economic Cooperation described the decision as a “licence for piracy,” while Peter Menzies, a former Calgary Herald publisher, called it “bizarre” for Ottawa to defend actions that undercut media companies the government claims to support.Barry Sookman, senior counsel at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, warned the ruling could erode confidence in subscription-based business models. “The decision could leave online news services scratching their corporate heads,” he wrote, questioning whether publishers still have any legal protection against subscribers — especially federal employees — ignoring their terms of use.
