Consequently, copyright law functions more as a tool to defend creators and not as a system promoting innovation and creativity. Indirect infringement in the US comes under vicarious liability (Shapiro, Bernstein v. HL Green 326 F.2d 304 (2nd Cir. 1963)) and/or contributory liability (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)). Where as, in Canada indirect infringement is known as secondary infringement. At the same time with regard to "fair use" doctrine this doctrine can be used in the US in a very broad sense than in Canada. This means that the provisions of fair use are more liberally interpreted in the US than they are in Canada. This is the background of the discussion for this paper.
The most important factor of copyright law is linked to the public interest. Copyright law actually protects and for ever tries to equalize the requirement for motivators for creativeness and the requirement to allow society to approach works created (B Kaplan, 1967; P Goldstein, 1970; R C Denicola, 1979; M J Radin, 1982; D Baird, 1983 and I E Novos and M Waldman, 1984). Widening the security rendered by copyright furnishes better incentives for generators, but constricts the public area, that is, the general cultural resources to which the public has contact. Bringing in the right balance linking adequate incentives for originality and limiting the public domain has at all times been, and yet is, one of the major tests of copyright law.
The Canadian and US laws look very different on their face as one anticipates different consequences in both the countries with regard to infringement of copyright laws. This is true only to a certain extent. Therefore, when a report is published by the Canadian government or a group which is the agent of the crown can claim copyright of the report in Canada (Dableh v. Ontario Hydro, 1993)i. Whereas the same report, if published by any arm of the US federal government, cannot claim